When will something be done about the Whitby branch ?

[Starmill]

It makes little difference.

But it does...

 

[yorksrob]

But it does...

But it doesn't.

Peoople on this forum seem to go on about it a lot, but the people that use the line obviously aren't that bothered or they'd abandon it and use the 70 minute bus instead.

 

[ainsworth74]

The suburban is thriving. I now find I have people sitting next to me on the morning trains because there are no free pairs of seats. Five years ago it was almost empty.

Absolutely! And if any big money were to be spent I'd spend it on improving Middlesbrough to Nunthorpe (and maybe this Roseberry Parkway idea if that came off) where there is already very clear demand, you're serving major population centres and paralleling roads which are notorious for being jammed during the peaks.

 

[Greybeard33]

Peoople on this forum seem to go on about it a lot, but the people that use the line obviously aren't that bothered or they'd abandon it and use the 70 minute bus instead.

But clearly the majority of public transport users do prefer the bus for journeys to Whitby. Even at this time of year, the X93 service provides 15 buses per day from Middlesbrough and 24 per day from Scarborough (the latter connecting with the TPE trains from York/Leeds/Manchester/Liverpool).

The X93 is a commercial service, so Arriva MAX would not offer such high frequencies unless load factors were good.

 

[Ploughman]

I would suggest that pretty much every route in the country has trains which are half empty or emptier at some times. Take a train out of Charing Cross or Victoria at half ten on a weekday evening, or six o'clock in the morning and see how many people you're sharing a carriage with. Heck, I've even been on the Victoria line when the carriage has been less than half full.

But according to some on here, every train at every hour of the day on the Whitby line must be full and standing to justify any investment.

I was on a service out of Kings Cross at about 06.30 on a weekday morning a number of years back.
In the buffet the guard was telling the steward how many passengers were on board, 12 !!
Has there been any suggestion that the ECML should curtail it's operations because a few trains run empty?

 

[yorksrob]

But clearly the majority of public transport users do prefer the bus for journeys to Whitby. Even at this time of year, the X93 service provides 15 buses per day from Middlesbrough and 24 per day from Scarborough (the latter connecting with the TPE trains from York/Leeds/Manchester/Liverpool).

The X93 is a commercial service, so Arriva MAX would not offer such high frequencies unless load factors were good.

That's not really the point though. If the bus was that popular, there wouldn't be so many people using a comparatively limited rail service.

How would you account for the people who use the train service end to end ?

Do you think that they're just not aware of the bus, or do you accept the fact that for a decent proportion of the travelling public, the train is just more suitable for this journey ?

I was on a service out of Kings Cross at about 06.30 on a weekday morning a number of years back.
In the buffet the guard was telling the steward how many passengers were on board, 12 !!
Has there been any suggestion that the ECML should curtail it's operations because a few trains run empty?

Exactly.

 

[Marton]

You've clearly not been on the same trains as I have. I travel the route several times a year and frequently find the trains full and standing, and on some very non-descript weekends of the year.

There are always hoardes of people getting on the 10:19 from Middlesborough.

True. If I’m on a Whitby train it’s Usually either the 1001 from Nunthorpe or 1402 to Whitby, sometimes the 1756 which can be busy but never standing room only when I’ve used it.

The only time I’ve had to stand is on a bank holiday.

I must be lucky, or you unlucky.

 

[markindurham]

How many of the people in those villages actually rely on the train - ie do not have access to cars?

Why does that matter? Schoolchildren, for example, use the line going to/from school - the 4pm off Whitby is very busy for quite a way from Whitby. The line is a service. And when the weather is poor in winter, the railway keeps going far better than the A171. That, remember, was why the Alston branch survived as long as it did - the road access to Alston was poor. Indeed, even today it's not brilliant in severe weather.

 

[R G NOW.]

Like where? There's basically Middlesbrough and Whitby on the line itself.



So from December you can leave Whitby at 0633 and arrive into Leeds three hours and ten minutes later at 0943. You can then return at 1614 and arrive back into Whitby three hours and eleven minutes later at 1925. Or alternatively leave Leeds at 1914 and arrive back two hours and fifty-nine minutes later at 2213. So a six hour and twenty minute round trip. Meanwhile you can travel, by car, in the morning peak in around an hour and thirty to around two hours and a similar time returning. So around three to four hours.

Now you'll forgive me but if anyone is actually doing this as their daily commute they're going to be driving not taking the train.

York is more doable but even there driving is around a two to three hour round trip whilst the train is a over a five hour round trip. Again, people are driving not taking the train.



No of course not and that's part of the reason why I'm keen for the service to remain and maybe even be slightly improved.

Not good for the c02 levels if people have got to drive, why does it take that long by train.

By the way, 200 post, going to celebrate with doughnut and choccy yog for tea.

 

[30907]

Not good for the c02 if people have got no fast service, why does it take that long.

Geography. 80min MBR-LDS is a pretty decent time, so even if WTB-MBR could be cut to 80 min, you'd have a minimum of 165min which is uncompetitive for commuting.

Well, lets get the two hourly service and strengthened trains in place and take it from there. The problem is, without capital investment, you're not going to get even that.

Sensible starting point, provided you don't insist on an exact interval. Just one extra unit to lease (and find it work on Teeside for the morning peak), and possibly a new token section Glaisdale-Grosmont.

Or - recalling the one-time idea for a micro-franchise run by the NYMR - could you run a heritage unit (advertised as such) at 0945 MBR-WTB returning sometime 1700-1830, plus positioning workings from/to Grosmont. The NYMR have a very nice class 101, or maybe a preserved 144? This would cover the serious seasonal demand, and allow the NYMR to have their unit during the week low season.

(I haven't pathed this properly; this is in addition to the early and late trains already in the 2019-20 timetable; I have no idea whether this is financially and contractually workable.)

 

[cactustwirly]

Well, lets get the two hourly service and strengthened trains in place and take it from there. The problem is, without capital investment, you're not going to get even that.

Who's gonna pay for all the upgrades and rolling stock for 1tp2h?
How many extra passengers do you expect, what cost benefit does 1tp2h give? Is it a bigger benefit than improving suburban services in West Yorkshire?

 

[markindurham]

Central locking, disabled access, retention tanks for toilets - 3 reasons why 101, 14x etc would not be viable for commuter like operations. Then there's the crewing, wear & tear (with associated expense, particularly as spares become more scarce), certification etc to take into account, so I cannot see the NYMR even considering this.

 

[Greybeard33]

How would you account for the people who use the train service end to end ?

Do you think that they're just not aware of the bus, or do you accept the fact that for a decent proportion of the travelling public, the train is just more suitable for this journey ?

There are a number of possible reasons why some people prefer the Middlesbrough - Whitby rail service to the quicker X93 bus. In addition to those you mention, some are no doubt deterred by the 10 minute walk from Middlesbrough railway station to the bus stop, if they arrive at Middlebrough by rail. The numbers using the bus might well increase if the route was altered to call at the railway station, and the bus schedule appeared in the National Rail timetable (as is already the case for the Transdev 840 Coastliner direct bus service from York railway station to Whitby via Pickering).

The preferences of a small proportion of passengers do not make the case for higher taxpayer operating subsidies to enable additional/strengthened rail services, still less for investment in infrastructure enhancements.

 

[30907]

Central locking, disabled access, retention tanks for toilets - 3 reasons why 101, 14x etc would not be viable for commuter like operations. Then there's the crewing, wear & tear (with associated expense, particularly as spares become more scarce), certification etc to take into account, so I cannot see the NYMR even considering this.

Points taken (I was aware of most of them, but hadn't realised the 101 wasn't certified) but I was talking about a seasonal seaside excursion not a "commuter like operation".

PS Looking at RTT, it looks as though the unit spare at MBR from 1000 is there in the new TT, so maybe all it needs is for Northern to use it...

 

[yorksrob]

Geography. 80min MBR-LDS is a pretty decent time, so even if WTB-MBR could be cut to 80 min, you'd have a minimum of 165min which is uncompetitive for commuting.

Sensible starting point, provided you don't insist on an exact interval. Just one extra unit to lease (and find it work on Teeside for the morning peak), and possibly a new token section Glaisdale-Grosmont.

Or - recalling the one-time idea for a micro-franchise run by the NYMR - could you run a heritage unit (advertised as such) at 0945 MBR-WTB returning sometime 1700-1830, plus positioning workings from/to Grosmont. The NYMR have a very nice class 101, or maybe a preserved 144? This would cover the serious seasonal demand, and allow the NYMR to have their unit during the week low season.

(I haven't pathed this properly; this is in addition to the early and late trains already in the 2019-20 timetable; I have no idea whether this is financially and contractually workable.)

Well indeed. I do think there needs to be some sort of imaginative thinking to improve things.

A few years back, there was a DfT specifically to enable coastal resorts to improve their rail services. With a bit of imagination, Whitby, for example, could have bid for funding to do up a heritage diesel to supplement the existing service on summer Saturdays, perhaps meeting a Northern Rail service at Battersby. The fact that it didn't might have been due to Whitby being a small town and not having the resources to submit the bid (this is something larger Council's find easier), however something like that would have been beneficial for Whitby and visitors alike.

There are a number of possible reasons why some people prefer the Middlesbrough - Whitby rail service to the quicker X93 bus. In addition to those you mention, some are no doubt deterred by the 10 minute walk from Middlesbrough railway station to the bus stop, if they arrive at Middlebrough by rail. The numbers using the bus might well increase if the route was altered to call at the railway station, and the bus schedule appeared in the National Rail timetable (as is already the case for the Transdev 840 Coastliner direct bus service from York railway station to Whitby via Pickering).

The preferences of a small proportion of passengers do not make the case for higher taxpayer operating subsidies to enable additional/strengthened rail services, still less for investment in infrastructure enhancements.

I'm sorry, but your uncorroborated theories of whether passengers might or might not switch modes if some here today, gone tomorrow bus service came a bit nearer to the station, is no excuse for not having a decent standard of railway service.

The standard of railway service should be based on the needs of Whitby passengers, as well as what works as a rail service with similar resorts around the country.

The railway service to Whitby should not be dictated by the needs of railway managers thirty years ago to trim the service for privatisation, nor should it be based on the theories of bus enthusiasts as to how they think rail passengers should travel.

 

[markindurham]

Points taken (I was aware of most of them, but hadn't realised the 101 wasn't certified) but I was talking about a seasonal seaside excursion not a "commuter like operation".

OK, no problem. Nevertheless, certification and modification costs are still there, and given the present political landscape regarding <the environment>, any necessary derogation regarding toilets, for example, might well prove problematic.

 

[yoyothehobo]

Most people i know who were going to whitby from middlesbrough would get the bus, and if they were going hiking in the moors get the train to an intermediate stop.

The train is very much a novelty in compariso.

 

[70014IronDuke]

1) ...
3) NRs measurement train will make regular visits. Note there is a difference between regular and frequent. Upgrading a line for a yellow train twice a year doth not butter the parsnips.

Sorry - I really don't understand what you mean here.

... 6) I was last on the line around 15 years ago, when I lived up that way. I doubt much has changed, save for the NYMR. Needless to say, most trips to Whitby back then were in the car, partly because coming from the south it was far easier, but primarily because there were plenty of other attractions in the area to see on the way there or back that are not accessible from the railway and needed a car to get to. Robin Hood’s bay for example. Staithes. The Lion Inn at Blakey Ridge. And so on. Believe it or not, when most people - especially families and older couples - go to a small seaside town they want to travel around the area a bit. And for that the car will always win.

I'm not sure that anyone commenting in this thread is under the impression that the car could be sidelined for travel to or from Whitby. Given the loss of the line from York, the "attractiveness" of going via Middlesbrough will always leave the Esk Valley route at a huge disadvantage for the vast amount of traffic, real or potential, except (to some extent) from Teeside and maybe Darlington/Durham coast.

What we are discussing in here is what realistic modifications could be done to Esk Valley services and/or infrastructure to enable the grossly under-used rail line to be significantly better used.

OP Yorks Rob wants a 153 to be retained and added to summer trains (amongst other suggestions). Some (including me), while not against that idea, think seeking to tap into the potential commuter market into Teeside could be a more steady and sustainable revenue source. But just about everyone agrees that both the limited number of trains and the 90 minute overall journey time for Boro - Whitby section are significant barriers to growth. A new (or reinstated) loop around Castleton Moor would improve service capacity and reliability. If speed limits could be raised over some sections, obviously journey times could be reduced.

But even if traffic over the Esk Valley could be doubled, tripled or even quadrupled, I suspect the impact on car travel into or out of Whitby percentage terms would be miniscule. Not to be sneezed at in terms of the railway link, of course. But then there are costs involved.

 

[Greybeard33]

I'm sorry, but your uncorroborated theories of whether passengers might or might not switch modes if some here today, gone tomorrow bus service came a bit nearer to the station, is no excuse for not having a decent standard of railway service.

In your dreams!

The standard of railway service should be based on the needs of Whitby passengers, as well as what works as a rail service with similar resorts around the country.

Which specific resorts do you have in mind, that are similarly at the end of a long, slow, meandering branch line but get more than six trains per day?

The railway service to Whitby should not be dictated by the needs of railway managers thirty years ago to trim the service for privatisation, nor should it be based on the theories of bus enthusiasts as to how they think rail passengers should travel.

I am not a "bus enthusiast". For many journeys, rail is quicker than bus. But Middlesbrough to Whitby, via the current alignment, is not one of them. The limited public funding available for rail service enhancements should be concentrated on lines where it will provide more benefit.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I'm not sure how many people realistically think that large numbers of current car based commuters or holiday makers will transfer to an improved train service. But I don't think that need be the central purpose of any improvements, worthwhile though they may be.

There also seems to be an obsession that the only people who will make use of any improved service will a) be travelling a long distance, and b) be coming from the south of York and therefore the alternatives (Coastliner, X93 from Scarborough or car) are quicker. Yes they are. I doubt anyone challenges this blatant fact. What about commuters (inc students) to greater Tees-side, Darlington or Newcastle or trippers in the opposite direction?

There are current users who receive an unsatisfactory service at present due to the absolute lack of capacity. There is, effectively, one train per day to Whitby for day-trippers. That train is often full and standing. I have not seen people left behind but, were I a tripper boarding at any of the stations after Middlesbrough, I would certainly be deterred from travelling again by train if I had had to stand all the way to Whitby (or if my party were split across 2 carriages rather than travelling together). My observation this year was a party of scouts boarding at Commondale (Scout camp nearby) to travel to Whitby for the day. They all had to stand. I guess many of them had not made a train journey before. Perhaps they thought the cramped conditions added to the excitement of the train-ride and will tell all their school-friends just how great train travel is - lets all do it again!

The current infrequent service (and so-called improved service from December) will deter potential users. The single useful departure from Middlesbrough (1020) is quite late for those based in the Middlesbrough area or for those who want a full day out. Alternatively it is quite late for those arriving from further afield, requiring an 0829 departure from Newcastle for example.

The parallel bus services referred to (Arriva X4 and X93) do not serve the same intermediate points. That includes the rural villages as destinations but also the suburbs of Middlesbrough as origins eg Great Ayton.

People who like a drink as part of their day-trip will find the facilities available on the return train substantially superior to those available on the X93 bus service.

A train service comes with a 'get you home' guarantee. A bus service does not. If the last X93 breaks down, or is full and standing, tough. Phone (and pay for) your own taxi.

Connections from the Esk Valley train service into the NYMR service are poor, making it difficult for the non-car user to have a ride to Pickering, visit, return, and catch the Esk Valley train home.

 

[yorksrob]

In your dreams!

Which specific resorts do you have in mind, that are similarly at the end of a long, slow, meandering branch line but get more than six trains per day?

I am not a "bus enthusiast". For many journeys, rail is quicker than bus. But Middlesbrough to Whitby, via the current alignment, is not one of them. The limited public funding available for rail service enhancements should be concentrated on lines where it will provide more benefit.

You make the fundamental error of thinking everything is about speed. It's not. If I want to go to Whitby, I will have already factored in that it will take a long time by public transport. The twenty minute saving by getting a bus will be neither here nor there compared to the comfort and convenience of the train. Whether it's a slow meandering branchline, or a double track electrified line makes no difference. The railway from A to B is the railway from A to B. Where the train is quicker than the bus, should we not bother with bus services, even though some people find them useful ?

I'm reminded of the Marshlink. A fairly slow (albeit not as meandering as the Whitby line) across an area of low population to the coast. Threatened with closure throughout the 1960's and somewhat awkward to operate, due to being a diesel island and single track. It also has a very good road running parallel (the A259) so a bus service would be possible. Yet, the hourly train service is thriving.

 

[Bald Rick]

Sorry - I really don't understand what you mean here.

I was referring to a suggestion, or even an implication, from another contributor that linespeeds should be improved because they delay the NR inspection trains (generally referred to as yellow trains due to their livery).

I suspect said train makes two visits a year to the line, and I was stating that using the potential benefit to the inspection trains as a contributory reason for upgrading the line would not help the case in any significant way. The phrase ‘doth not butter the parsnips’ (which I have stolen freely, and without credit, from the comedian Joe Lycett, although it may not be his own work) is a similar phrase to ‘doesn’t cut the mustard’.

Sorry for trying to be a bit too verbose!

 

[30907]

I'm reminded of the Marshlink. A fairly slow (albeit not as meandering as the Whitby line) across an area of low population to the coast. Threatened with closure throughout the 1960's and somewhat awkward to operate, due to being a diesel island and single track. It also has a very good road running parallel (the A259) so a bus service would be possible. Yet, the hourly train service is thriving.

Marshlink has had an hourly weekday service for the last 57 years. It doesn't have a huge seasonal traffic. It has a thriving centre (Ashford) at one end and Rye is within commuting distance of London, and it forms part of a through route.
The "good" road is slower by car (Googlemaps) than the train even with recent improvements - indeed slower than the A170 which is a very similar distance.

A comparable example to Whitby is the Cambrian Coast - timetable built round school traffic which kept it open, seasonal holiday traffic... but it has several advantages:
1. local traffic during school holidays
2. crossing loops fortuitously 50min apart
3. viaducts across estuaries.

BTW I don't think anyone has referenced the extensive article in the current Modern Railways?

 

[yorksrob]

Marshlink has had an hourly weekday service for the last 57 years. It doesn't have a huge seasonal traffic. It has a thriving centre (Ashford) at one end and Rye is within commuting distance of London, and it forms part of a through route.
The "good" road is slower by car (Googlemaps) than the train even with recent improvements - indeed slower than the A170 which is a very similar distance.

A comparable example to Whitby is the Cambrian Coast - timetable built round school traffic which kept it open, seasonal holiday traffic... but it has several advantages:
1. local traffic during school holidays
2. crossing loops fortuitously 50min apart
3. viaducts across estuaries.

BTW I don't think anyone has referenced the extensive article in the current Modern Railways?

I was going by my area of knowledge (not having had experience of the Cambrian Coast). Thriving Ashford may be, but I don't believe it is anywhere near as big a passenger market as Middlesborough/Teeside is for the Whitby line.

I referenced the Modern Railways article a few posts back.

 

[ainsworth74]

What about commuters (inc students) to greater Tees-side, Darlington or Newcastle or trippers in the opposite direction?

It's just Teesside thank you, no hyphen

Day trippers are a market which could be better served and indeed it would be nice to see them better served by providing a slight improvement in frequency to roughly two hourly and perhaps by pinching a unit to try and strengthen some key services (which to be fair Northern already try and do). They are not a reason to go and spend multiple millions on enhancements to deliver a significantly improved service over the base offer. Equally commuters would be better served by the above but again considering the population numbers we're talking about (and remembering that many will drive even if they had a London Overground level of service) again they're not going to make your business case stack up.

There is no reason to shut the line or reduce the service and there is a reason to try and eek out some more improvements. But there is absolutely no case to spend large sums of limited funding here when there are many other areas that would benefit from significant investment. Heck even remodelling Middlesbrough station (which would indirectly benefit the Esk Valley Line) would make more sense financially than sticking another passing loop in the Esk Valley.

That includes the rural villages as destinations but also the suburbs of Middlesbrough as origins eg Great Ayton.

Great Ayton station doesn't serve Great Ayton! It's about a mile down the road!

You make the fundamental error of thinking everything is about speed. It's not. If I want to go to Whitby, I will have already factored in that it will take a long time by public transport.

That's lovely for you but most people will not think that way. Someone living in Redcar who fancies taking the children to Whitby on Saturday will look up train times and go "It's two hours to Whitby by train with a change or it's forty-five minutes in the car. Kids, let's get in the car!". The same is true across the Teesside.

I was going by my area of knowledge (not having had experience of the Cambrian Coast). Thriving Ashford may be, but I don't believe it is anywhere near as big a passenger market as Middlesborough/Teeside is for the Whitby line.

Of course the big difference between the two isn't that Middlesbrough is at one end compared with Ashford it's that you could leave somewhere like Rye and then be in London in just over an hour. Meanwhile the train from Whitby in that time would still be at least twenty odd minutes away from Middlesbrough. Heck you could potentially be in Brussels or Paris before our intrepid passenger from Whitby has even made it to London! The Marshlink has the advantage

of being one change from London. Whitby doesn't.

 

[duffield]

...
The Marshlink has the advantage of being one change from London. Whitby doesn't.

It will do fairly soon though, Middlesborough is due to get direct London services in around two years.

Moves are afoot to “rejig” Middlesbrough Station to allow London-bound services to arrive in 2021.

A new third platform is needed at the station to accommodate longer 10 carriage trains to the capital.

But it is expected this work won’t be ready for the arrival on LNER London trains in two years’ time.

In the meantime, “interim solutions” are being drawn up instead, including turning around trains at sidings in Redcar to allow at least some services to run to the capital.

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/middlesbrough-station-rejig-allow-london-17102978

 

[ainsworth74]

It will do fairly soon though, Middlesborough is due to get direct London services in around two years.

I should have also been clear that it's time that's the key difference. Our hypothetical passenger from Rye will be in London before our hypothetical passenger from Whitby has made it to Middlesbrough let alone into London!

 

[JKF]

Is it fair to suggest that of the four routes that would have originally lead to Whitby (the current one, via Pickering, Scarborough or from Saltburn) they kept the wrong one open? I have a feeling that the old mainline (NYMR) route would have linked the town to better destinations (& faster onward travel to the south) as would retaining the coastal route as an extension from Scarborough. I wonder why Esk Valley survived?

 

[PeterC]

Is it fair to suggest that of the four routes that would have originally lead to Whitby (the current one, via Pickering, Scarborough or from Saltburn) they kept the wrong one open? I have a feeling that the old mainline (NYMR) route would have linked the town to better destinations (& faster onward travel to the south) as would retaining the coastal route as an extension from Scarborough. I wonder why Esk Valley survived?

A train from the coastal route to Scarborough would require reversal to access the main station in the harbour. I agree that the Pickering route would have been better for longer distance rail traffic. I assume that there were social considerations about serving the intermediate settlements that resulted in the present route surviving, without those would Whitby have any rail service at all now?

 

[ainsworth74]

I agree that the Pickering route would have been better for longer distance rail traffic. I assume that there were social considerations about serving the intermediate settlements that resulted in the present route surviving, without those would Whitby have any rail service at all now?

This. Via Pickering makes the most sense if the objective was to provide Whitby with long distance services from York/Leeds/London etc. But they weren't interested in that during the Beeching era so that more obvious route was shut. The Esk Valley route survived however for similar reasons to places like Alston (until that was sadly shut a decade later) the intermediate stations between Whitby and Nunthorpe (or Ormesby as it would have been then) were so remote that there was a considerable risk of such places being wholly cut off if road transit was the only option. Plus the buses of the day would have struggled to provide a replacement service. So the line survived as a social necessity. That necessity is quite as acute now however due to advances in the condition of the roads and car ownership but it is still a consideration and one of the reasons why I'd strongly oppose shutting it now!