What could be done to make the Whitby line better?

[nw1]

Indeed, I mean the better part of the 21st century, rather than this decade, which seems to be particularly rubbish.

Yes, I thought you might to be fair. And agree that the 2020s has just about nothing going for it at all, so far; indeed the best years of the 21st century were, IMO, clearly the 00s.

Agree about the old "two trains in steam" Whitby timetable.

It also provides counter-evidence to the theory that clockface timetables were not so much a thing in the early 80s. On some lines, perhaps - but not on this one.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, I thought you might to be fair. And agree that the 2020s has just about nothing going for it at all, so far; indeed the best years of the 21st century were, IMO, clearly the 00s.


It also provides counter-evidence to the theory that clockface timetables were not so much a thing in the early 80s. On some lines, perhaps - but not on this one.

Indeed. I was living on the Southern Region in the 1980's and clockface timetables were very much a thing there.

 

[nw1]

Indeed. I was living on the Southern Region in the 1980's and clockface timetables were very much a thing there.

Same here - and indeed well before that, by all accounts.

 

[mangyiscute]

I just think that if small bits of money are thrown at the line to say implement passing loops to make it 2 hourly or something like that, its just not going to be worth it - 30 passengers per day is not a viable railway line (especially as from what I saw, a lot of these passengers will be schoolchildren who already have the services that they need). I believe that (re)building a line from Whitby to Scarborough would be economically viable and would solve all of these issues - as we have seen many times before, build the line and the people will come. However, the UK's lack of infrastructure investment means that this is extremely unlikely to happen

 

[yorksrob]

I just think that if small bits of money are thrown at the line to say implement passing loops to make it 2 hourly or something like that, its just not going to be worth it - 30 passengers per day is not a viable railway line (especially as from what I saw, a lot of these passengers will be schoolchildren who already have the services that they need). I believe that (re)building a line from Whitby to Scarborough would be economically viable and would solve all of these issues - as we have seen many times before, build the line and the people will come. However, the UK's lack of infrastructure investment means that this is extremely unlikely to happen

There are generally way more than thirty passengers on the 10:19 off of Middlesborough, let alone a day.

I'm all for reinstating the line from Scarborough, however I see it as unlikely, and it shouldn't be held out as an excuse for not improving the existing service.

 

[mangyiscute]

There are generally way more than thirty passengers on the 10:19 off of Middlesborough, let alone a day.

I'm all for reinstating the line from Scarborough, however I see it as unlikely, and it shouldn't be held out as an excuse for not improving the existing service.

I don't understand.

The passenger statistics say that there were 120,000 entries and exits at Whitby station in April 2021 - March 2022.

This works out as 328 per day, or 33 per train (there are currently 10 trains per day).

Yes during the summer there are more passengers using the service, especially at the more favourable times. But that also means that in winter, there are practically empty trains running.

Just because "I've once seen a whole minibus of passengers going to whitby from york" doesn't mean anything; what matters is the overall usage.

 

[geordieblue]

I don't understand.

The passenger statistics say that there were 120,000 entries and exits at Whitby station in April 2021 - March 2022.

This works out as 328 per day, or 33 per train (there are currently 10 trains per day).

Yes during the summer there are more passengers using the service, especially at the more favourable times. But that also means that in winter, there are practically empty trains running.

Just because "I've once seen a whole minibus of passengers going to whitby from york" doesn't mean anything; what matters is the overall usage.

Of course the chance of someone travelling on a busy service is higher than the chance of travelling on a quiet service - which may give the impression that the service is always busy, not that they have simply picked the statistically busiest train.

 

[yorksrob]

Of course the chance of someone travelling on a busy service is higher than the chance of travelling on a quiet service - which may give the impression that the service is always busy, not that they have simply picked the statistically busiest train.

I think that you're right, there is an element of that. I tend to go on days off when other people have days off.

Thirty people a day still seems too low to me. There must be thirty school commuters alone, and it wouldn't be the first time that there's been a "counting" annomoly in terms of ticketing.

My other point is that if the line had a remotely useable service, more people would probably come.

 

[deltic08]

At the end of the day, I have listed the reasons why your wished change to the timetable cannot be made, and you have just ignored me. When are you going to accept that other peoples needs on the railway also matter?

I can understand why Yorksrob has ignored you living 200 miles away in Reading. He lives in the same county as Whitby as do I, and has more experience of the deterioration of train travel in this county than you do. Rejigging timetables is not a big deal as you make out. I wholehearted support him in this.
For three years following a stroke I was unable to drive. I was unable to visit Whitby, a regular journey and ride by rail just for the pleasure of travelling the line, because the bus to my nearest railhead of Thirsk only operates between the hours of 9 and 5. A taxi is £15 each way so is out of the question. I pity those non car drivers who rely on public transport as North Yorkshire suffers from public transport poverty.
Now that I am driving again, I drive to Great Ayton and catch the train there for only a fiver day return with a railcard. It is three times that from Thirsk with long changes at Middlesbrough each way. Going on a weekday, the train is comfortable but travelling on a weekend the four coach 156 is rammed but still better than a Pacer. This is why I now only travel on weekdays as it is no fun standing from Great Ayton. The purpose of my journey is pleasure.
All credit to Network Rail plus funding from North Yorkshire County Council, they have replaced most, if not all, remaining bullhead rail and wooden sleepers with continuous welded rail on concrete sleepers between Battersby Junction and Grosmont. NR have also relayed the station to Bog Hall Junction on concrete sleepers.
All it needs now is raising the speed limit from 45 mph to 60moh where they can. What I can't understand is the 10/15/20 mph speed limits at gated or automatic barriered crossings with some open road crossings 35mph.
It would be ideal if the line from Battersby Junction could be reopened south towards Northallerton instead of travelling through Middlesbrough without reversal at Battersby but as others have said there are more deserving projects

 

[geordieblue]

I think that you're right, there is an element of that. I tend to go on days off when other people have days off.

Thirty people a day still seems too low to me. There must be thirty school commuters alone, and it wouldn't be the first time that there's been a "counting" annomoly in terms of ticketing.

My other point is that if the line had a remotely useable service, more people would probably come.

In fairness that might be an error - I meant 30 people per train leaving Whitby, so around 300 arrivals/departures a day. There is definitely a fair quantity of intermediate traffic particularly from the schools.

 

[yorksrob]

In fairness that might be an error - I meant 30 people per train leaving Whitby, so around 300 arrivals/departures a day. There is definitely a fair quantity of intermediate traffic particularly from the schools.

Indeed. The school children are quite persistent, but there seem to be plenty of day trippers cll year round.

I can understand why Yorksrob has ignored you living 200 miles away in Reading. He lives in the same county as Whitby as do I, and has more experience of the deterioration of train travel in this county than you do. Rejigging timetables is not a big deal as you make out. I wholehearted support him in this.
For three years following a stroke I was unable to drive. I was unable to visit Whitby, a regular journey and ride by rail just for the pleasure of travelling the line, because the bus to my nearest railhead of Thirsk only operates between the hours of 9 and 5. A taxi is £15 each way so is out of the question. I pity those non car drivers who rely on public transport as North Yorkshire suffers from public transport poverty.
Now that I am driving again, I drive to Great Ayton and catch the train there for only a fiver day return with a railcard. It is three times that from Thirsk with long changes at Middlesbrough each way. Going on a weekday, the train is comfortable but travelling on a weekend the four coach 156 is rammed but still better than a Pacer. This is why I now only travel on weekdays as it is no fun standing from Great Ayton. The purpose of my journey is pleasure.
All credit to Network Rail plus funding from North Yorkshire County Council, they have replaced most, if not all, remaining bullhead rail and wooden sleepers with continuous welded rail on concrete sleepers between Battersby Junction and Grosmont. NR have also relayed the station to Bog Hall Junction on concrete sleepers.
All it needs now is raising the speed limit from 45 mph to 60moh where they can. What I can't understand is the 10/15/20 mph speed limits at gated or automatic barriered crossings with some open road crossings 35mph.
It would be ideal if the line from Battersby Junction could be reopened south towards Northallerton instead of travelling through Middlesbrough without reversal at Battersby but as others have said there are more deserving projects

Thanks very much for another Whitby line users point of view (my own one wears thin). Its so important that we support the line as there are those who are against it.

 

[Bantamzen]

I don't understand.

The passenger statistics say that there were 120,000 entries and exits at Whitby station in April 2021 - March 2022.

This works out as 328 per day, or 33 per train (there are currently 10 trains per day).

Yes during the summer there are more passengers using the service, especially at the more favourable times. But that also means that in winter, there are practically empty trains running.

Just because "I've once seen a whole minibus of passengers going to whitby from york" doesn't mean anything; what matters is the overall usage.

I can't claim to have done the route anything like as much as @yorksrob, however on the few occasions I have services have generally been busy to full & standing. That seems to suggest that there is at least potential for the route if connections were better, something ironically you allude to in the above post. Perhaps with the arrival at Northern of the 100mph 195s, a future might see North East drivers signed for them, and stock made available to be used to extend some summer season services to York for even better connectivity.

 

[tbtc]

Just a thought, but maybe one reason why the Whitby timetable isn’t based around convenient connections from Wakefield (a place approx seventy five miles away from Middlesbrough) is that maybe Wakefield isn’t quite as important a flow as the OP’s personal opinion?

Maybe the passenger data might suggest that’s significant number of passengers are doing journeys that go no further west than Middlesbrough, and that the more significant “longer distance” flows are places like Newcastle and Sunderland, rather that Wakefield?

Because if you start your thread with the premise that “the Whitby branch has an inadequate timetable because connections from Wakefield are suboptimal” then it feels like there’s a lot of huge assumptions already baked in, which makes it harder for others to treat this as the “priority” that the OP clearly feels that it is

And then what about Wakefield to Bridlington? Or Colwyn Bay? Or… why is Whitby such a focus for people in Wakefield? Or, maybe, it isn’t?

I believe that (re)building a line from Whitby to Scarborough would be economically viable

Economically viable?

Profitable, you mean?

Given the tens of millions of pounds needed for around twenty miles of railway, over what timescale do you think we’d pay off the infrastructure investment?

The passenger statistics say that there were 120,000 entries and exits at Whitby station in April 2021 - March 2022.

This works out as 328 per day, or 33 per train (there are currently 10 trains per day)

Going on a weekday, the train is comfortable but travelling on a weekend the four coach 156 is rammed

We’ve had this argument a few times on here but the Whitby line seems to have some individual trains that carry more people than the average *daily* ridership on the branch (a full and standing four coach DMU)

Maybe that’s an argument for six coach trains on the most “obvious” service for day trippers on weekends during the school summer holidays (skip the minor intermediate stations by all means), leave the surplus carriages at Whitby during the daytime, maybe even focus on this being a through train from Tyneside down the Durham Coast…

…but such a heavily skewed demand pattern doesn’t seem much of an argument for increasing services during the middle of the day… people clearly aren’t travelling in balanced numbers during the daytime, there’s obviously a “Peak” flow in each direction and running more trains at times when people aren’t travelling would be a bigger waste of resources

Rejigging timetables is not a big deal as you make out

It is, on a long branch line with lots of single track, plus the complication of reversal at Battersby and the paths allocated to the NYRM east of Grosmont

(Rejigging the ECML services to prioritise the Wakefield to Whitby market would bring “taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut” to a whole new level)

 

[mangyiscute]

Economically viable?

Profitable, you mean?

Given the tens of millions of pounds needed for around twenty miles of railway, over what timescale do you think we’d pay off the infrastructure investment?

And this thinking is the exact reason why we never get new railways. It will never directly pay for itself (at least not within anyone's lifetime) but considering societal benefits (freedom of movement for work and leisure etc) the benefits would easily outweigh the costs.
I am never against investment into the railway, but my issue is that with the current state the line is in, it would take a lot of investment to improve the service. Is the Whitby line the best place for this investment to happen (considering we know that the railways will be getting a very limited budget from this government), or would it be better off on a line with much higher usage?

When I took a trip on the line at the start of march last year, i took the one that got there at half 3 and it was pretty much empty, and then on the way back there were schoolchildren but not really anyone else. Therefore, while the line does see good usage for days out in the summer, it seems to me that during the winter and when leisure travel is at its slowest, it barely gets any passengers, and its always going to be hard to justify investment on a line like this compared to one with consistent daily usage.
I do think that there are more lines/stations that should be much higher up the priority list than a Whitby to Scarborough line (for example, Penrith to Keswick if you want a line that I think would operate similarly).

My final question would be to ask why people are using the train for Middlesborough to Whitby journeys when the bus is faster and more frequent. It clearly suggests that there is something wrong with the bus service, and therefore I would argue money should be used to fix whatever this issue is (as suggested earlier, bus stops at Middlesborough station would be very helpful, as well as proper through ticketing) and this would require a lot less money than improving the train service.

 

[yorksrob]

Just a thought, but maybe one reason why the Whitby timetable isn’t based around convenient connections from Wakefield (a place approx seventy five miles away from Middlesbrough) is that maybe Wakefield isn’t quite as important a flow as the OP’s personal opinion?

Maybe the passenger data might suggest that’s significant number of passengers are doing journeys that go no further west than Middlesbrough, and that the more significant “longer distance” flows are places like Newcastle and Sunderland, rather that Wakefield?

Because if you start your thread with the premise that “the Whitby branch has an inadequate timetable because connections from Wakefield are suboptimal” then it feels like there’s a lot of huge assumptions already baked in, which makes it harder for others to treat this as the “priority” that the OP clearly feels that it is

And then what about Wakefield to Bridlington? Or Colwyn Bay? Or… why is Whitby such a focus for people in Wakefield? Or, maybe, it isn’t?



Economically viable?

Profitable, you mean?

Given the tens of millions of pounds needed for around twenty miles of railway, over what timescale do you think we’d pay off the infrastructure investment?




We’ve had this argument a few times on here but the Whitby line seems to have some individual trains that carry more people than the average *daily* ridership on the branch (a full and standing four coach DMU)

Maybe that’s an argument for six coach trains on the most “obvious” service for day trippers on weekends during the school summer holidays (skip the minor intermediate stations by all means), leave the surplus carriages at Whitby during the daytime, maybe even focus on this being a through train from Tyneside down the Durham Coast…

…but such a heavily skewed demand pattern doesn’t seem much of an argument for increasing services during the middle of the day… people clearly aren’t travelling in balanced numbers during the daytime, there’s obviously a “Peak” flow in each direction and running more trains at times when people aren’t travelling would be a bigger waste of resources




It is, on a long branch line with lots of single track, plus the complication of reversal at Battersby and the paths allocated to the NYRM east of Grosmont

(Rejigging the ECML services to prioritise the Wakefield to Whitby market would bring “taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut” to a whole new level)

As a point of order, I don't start from the premise that the Whitby branch has an inadequate timetable "because connections from Wakefield are sub-optimal".

I start from the premise that the service is inadequate because of the appalling frequency.

If the line had a "decent" two-hourly service, connections from further afield wouldn't be so problematic.

 

[mangyiscute]

As a point of order, I don't start from the premise that the Whitby branch has an inadequate timetable "because connections from Wakefield are sub-optimal".

I start from the premise that the service is inadequate because of the appalling frequency.

If the line had a "decent" two-hourly service, connections from further afield wouldn't be so problematic.

can i ask why you don't take the bus from Middlesborough/Scarborough to Whitby and what could be done to the bus service to persuade you to use it?

 

[Starmill]

can i ask why you don't take the bus from Middlesborough/Scarborough to Whitby and what could be done to the bus service to persuade you to use it?

The issue is this thread isn't really about Whitby's transport connections in general, which are unusually good for such a small place. The issue is in fact just yorksrob's personal gripes. Obviously these gripes are in no way less valid as a result but the reality is they're personal to them. I would love for a better train service to run to Whitby. However there are other more pressing priorities for the railway's very limited resources. That's why Whitby won't be getting an improvement soon.

 

[yorksrob]

To be fair, I think that the locals would appreciate a better service, particularly on the occasions when they're stood all the way there !

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Doing a simple division of the number of services into the usage figures gives a distorted picture. Some trains are full and standing, others aren't. What is needed is an analysis by arrival/departure and then an estimate of what would happen were the service improved around those times, rather than improvements spread evenly throughout the day.
It appears the key services (as per present timetable/usage) are those for the school time train into Whitby am, the return of the same pm, and the daytripper market from Middlesbrough (and beyond) which is basically the 10xx out and the 15xx and 19xx returns.

If an improved service departed Middlesbrough at 09xx, 10xx and 11xx, would that simply spread the existing passenger numbers more thinly across more trains instead of the current one (same revenue, much increased costs), or would it attract new passengers who can't make the 10xx departure and find the next departure at 14xx to be completely useless?

Personally I found the train useful for walks from intermediate stations rather than for Whitby itself where, as others have pointed out, the Arriva bus over the top is a more attractive option. As the fares from Middlesbrough to stations Lealholm to Whitby inclusive are the same price (2019) I usually bought a return to Whitby anyway so the usage for intermediate stations was under-recorded. Due to the infrequent service, I often found myself completing my walk and catching the afternoon train into Whitby just to immediately return rather than sit and wait up the line (depends on the weather, there is a nice bench just by Castleton Moor to while away the hours).

To be fair, I think that the locals would appreciate a better service, particularly on the occasions when they're stood all the way there !

Indeed, considering my experiences of the 10xx departure, most passengers after Nunthorpe seem to have to stand. Passengers starting at the stations that the line is most useful for (ie down in the valley) are the ones who receive the least attractive service as they have to stand all the way.

 

[yorksrob]

Doing a simple division of the number of services into the usage figures gives a distorted picture. Some trains are full and standing, others aren't. What is needed is an analysis by arrival/departure and then an estimate of what would happen were the service improved around those times, rather than improvements spread evenly throughout the day.
It appears the key services (as per present timetable/usage) are those for the school time train into Whitby am, the return of the same pm, and the daytripper market from Middlesbrough (and beyond) which is basically the 10xx out and the 15xx and 19xx returns.

If an improved service departed Middlesbrough at 09xx, 10xx and 11xx, would that simply spread the existing passenger numbers more thinly across more trains instead of the current one (same revenue, much increased costs), or would it attract new passengers who can't make the 10xx departure and find the next departure at 14xx to be completely useless?

Personally I found the train useful for walks from intermediate stations rather than for Whitby itself where, as others have pointed out, the Arriva bus over the top is a more attractive option. As the fares from Middlesbrough to stations Lealholm to Whitby inclusive are the same price (2019) I usually bought a return to Whitby anyway so the usage for intermediate stations was under-recorded. Due to the infrequent service, I often found myself completing my walk and catching the afternoon train into Whitby just to immediately return rather than sit and wait up the line (depends on the weather, there is a nice bench just by Castleton Moor to while away the hours).


Indeed, considering my experiences of the 10xx departure, most passengers after Nunthorpe seem to have to stand. Passengers starting at the stations that the line is most useful for (ie down in the valley) are the ones who receive the least attractive service as they have to stand all the way.

A very good point.

I think that at present day trippers from further afield are stuck with the unfortunate choice of curtailing their day at 15:56, or risking the dodgy/missing connections from the 19:xx. With a decent 2-hourly service of course, there would likely be a train back at around 18:xx which would be a lot better for day trippers.

 

[HSTEd]

It is, on a long branch line with lots of single track, plus the complication of reversal at Battersby and the paths allocated to the NYRM east of Grosmont

How much would it cost to fit a chord to allow the Battersby station area to be abandoned, especially if a winter closure?

If you did it right you could probably use an extant agricultural bridge to take the road that runs over the level crossing east of the reversal and eliminate the crossing too.

Sure it won't save much time, but it would at least improve the line operationally.

Journey time saving of several minutes and elimination of three sets of points and potentially a level crossing for the cost of a couple hundred metres of track and a few hundred metres of country lane.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

How much would it cost to fit a chord to allow the Battersby station area to be abandoned, especially if a winter closure?

If you did it right you could probably use an extant agricultural bridge to take the road that runs over the level crossing east of the reversal and eliminate the crossing too.

Sure it won't save much time, but it would at least improve the line operationally.

Journey time saving of several minutes and elimination of three sets of points and potentially a level crossing for the cost of a couple hundred metres of track and a few hundred metres of country lane.

This is the modern railway, start in the tens of millions and go as high as you feel! Don't forget third rail, fourth rail, 25kv and bionic duckweed inter-compatibility.

 

[yorksrob]

How much would it cost to fit a chord to allow the Battersby station area to be abandoned, especially if a winter closure?

If you did it right you could probably use an extant agricultural bridge to take the road that runs over the level crossing east of the reversal and eliminate the crossing too.

Sure it won't save much time, but it would at least improve the line operationally.

Journey time saving of several minutes and elimination of three sets of points and potentially a level crossing for the cost of a couple hundred metres of track and a few hundred metres of country lane.

I don't think abandoning Battersby would be worth the funding.

Far better to put a loop or some double track somewhere to enable a 2 hour frequency.

 

[Starmill]

How much would it cost to fit a chord to allow the Battersby station area to be abandoned, especially if a winter closure?

If you did it right you could probably use an extant agricultural bridge to take the road that runs over the level crossing east of the reversal and eliminate the crossing too.

Sure it won't save much time, but it would at least improve the line operationally.

Journey time saving of several minutes and elimination of three sets of points and potentially a level crossing for the cost of a couple hundred metres of track and a few hundred metres of country lane.

Probably over £100 million to save between 7 and 9 minutes, on four services per day. Would need a DCO or Order, Battersby to be put through formal closure, lots of land to acquire and earthworks, new structures, new track and significant signalling changes, and a full closure of many weeks.

Don't forget third rail, fourth rail, 25kv and bionic duckweed inter-compatibility.

Is there any new infrastructure anywhere that's specified to be third rail or fourth rail compatible, excluding where such systems are already in place of course?

 

[HSTEd]

Probably over £100 million to save between 7 and 9 minutes, on four services per day. Would need a DCO or Order, Battersby to be put through formal closure, lots of land to acquire and earthworks, new structures, new track and significant signalling changes, and a full closure of many weeks.

Why would there need to be new structures?

If 300m of single track low speed railway (with no pointwork) and 640m of country lane cost £100m we might as well give up right now!

 

[yorksrob]

If 300m of single track low speed railway and 640m of country lane cost £100m we might as well give up right now!

Some of us have been saying this all along about the Whitby line, but it still seems stuck in a rut.

If you're going to spend money on it, don't fixate on minor timing issues - get the frequency sorted out.

 

[Starmill]

Why would there need to be new structures?

If 300m of single track low speed railway (with no pointwork) and 640m of country lane cost £100m we might as well give up right now!

Because the country lane needs replacing if you want to turn it into a railway? And because the structures in use on a country lane are unlikely to be able to carry trains?

Not clear what you're going to do about objections to the closure of the station or the enormous disruption caused by the building works either. Just steamroller them and fingers crossed there's no application for Judicial Review?

 

[tbtc]

And this thinking is the exact reason why we never get new railways. It will never directly pay for itself (at least not within anyone's lifetime) but considering societal benefits (freedom of movement for work and leisure etc) the benefits would easily outweigh the costs

I wasn't the one who said it’d be “economically viable”, I’m just questioning what you meant by “economically viable”… since it sounds like you were suggesting it’d pay for itself, or at least that it’d be so busy that trains could run with no subsidies…

… but it sounds like you’re backtracking to the old “unquantifiable holistic benefits” stuff with this “societal benefits” stuff - if you only want to measure the scheme with something that magically gives you the answer that you want then fair enough but let’s not use words like “economically viable” to try to justify something that would be anything but

My final question would be to ask why people are using the train for Middlesborough to Whitby journeys when the bus is faster and more frequent. It clearly suggests that there is something wrong with the bus service, and therefore I would argue money should be used to fix whatever this issue is (as suggested earlier, bus stops at Middlesborough station would be very helpful, as well as proper through ticketing) and this would require a lot less money than improving the train service.

There are a number of flows in the UK where the slower mode of transport still attracts passengers (possibly due to price, sometimes due to serving town centres better) , but a lot of corridors where you’d get a lot more bang for your buck by targeting improved bus routes rather than heavy rail (e.g. think what £72m would have bought if spent on buses in Greater Manchester rather than just a turn back/ platform at Salford)

As a point of order, I don't start from the premise that the Whitby branch has an inadequate timetable "because connections from Wakefield are sub-optimal".

I start from the premise that the service is inadequate because of the appalling frequency.

If the line had a "decent" two-hourly service, connections from further afield wouldn't be so problematic.

If you're going to spend money on it, don't fixate on minor timing issues - get the frequency sorted out.

The frequency is not the issue though

The line clearly is heavily dominated by just a couple of services a day (which seem to attract more passengers between them than the entire average day passenger numbers for the line), day trippers to Whitby, fair enough, but they aren’t going to be interested in getting to Whitby for as early as eight in the morning or as late as three in the afternoon, they want a mid morning train out and a teatime journey home (maybe the teatime demand is more split between “families heading home around five due to kids” and “non-families staying a couple of hours later for a pint or three” but still, demand isn’t going to be evenly distributed over the daytime so increasing the daytime frequency would be missing the point, the priority should be longer trains on the couple of journeys that significant numbers actually use)

How much would it cost to fit a chord to allow the Battersby station area to be abandoned, especially if a winter closure?

If you did it right you could probably use an extant agricultural bridge to take the road that runs over the level crossing east of the reversal and eliminate the crossing too.

Sure it won't save much time, but it would at least improve the line operationally.

Journey time saving of several minutes and elimination of three sets of points and potentially a level crossing for the cost of a couple hundred metres of track and a few hundred metres of country lane.

Given the cosetted railway environment (where privatisation effectively guaranteed no- losers, so people can’t come to terms with some reductions because we sure too scared to make any cuts) then any time saving by a new chord at Battersby would mean local MPs only accepted it if there was one DMU at Great Ayton to provide a connection from Middlesbrough to Battersby and another DMU leaving Battersby in time to get to Kilsby for any Battersby to Whitby passengers - the idea of actually closing a lightly used station seems impossible!

 

[yorksrob]

The frequency is not the issue though

The line clearly is heavily dominated by just a couple of services a day (which seem to attract more passengers between them than the entire average day passenger numbers for the line), day trippers to Whitby, fair enough, but they aren’t going to be interested in getting to Whitby for as early as eight in the morning or as late as three in the afternoon, they want a mid morning train out and a teatime journey home (maybe the teatime demand is more split between “families heading home around five due to kids” and “non-families staying a couple of hours later for a pint or three” but still, demand isn’t going to be evenly distributed over the daytime so increasing the daytime frequency would be missing the point, the priority should be longer trains on the couple of journeys that significant numbers actually use)

I get your point, but I'm not convinced that that's true.

If you liok at the majority of tourist resorts (Brid, Eastbourne, Margate etc) visitors tend to want a choice of times to arrive and leave. Yes, most will be out in the morning and back in the evening/afternoon, but that itself contains a lot of potential variation as to when people actually want to leave/arrive.

I think frequency is the big stumbling block for Whitby.

 

[mangyiscute]

I get your point, but I'm not convinced that that's true.

If you liok at the majority of tourist resorts (Brid, Eastbourne, Margate etc) visitors tend to want a choice of times to arrive and leave. Yes, most will be out in the morning and back in the evening/afternoon, but that itself contains a lot of potential variation as to when people actually want to leave/arrive.

I think frequency is the big stumbling block for Whitby.

If they want frequency, use the half hourly scarborough bus/hourly middlesborough bus