Would the Selby diversion have been built had they known the coalfield would only be in use for about 20 years ?

[Justin Smith]

I have been reading the very interesting article in the Railway Magazine about the construction of the Selby diversion (apparently the design team were specifically told at the time to "forget [about] electrification ! ) which was opened 40 years ago.
The one thing I kept wondering was would they have built the diversion if they'd known the coalfield would only be in use for about 20 years ?

 

[Carlisle]

The one thing I kept wondering was would they have built the diversion if they'd known the coalfield would only be in use for about 20 years ?

I’ll guess probably not. Had it been known at the time of building that several new coal fired power stations planned by the CEGB in the 80s would never materialise & instead we’d have privatisation & the dash for gas.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

The choices were: don't build the diversion and have to apply a permanent speed restriction to the existing route, don't build the diversion but maintain the existing linespeed by restricting how much of the coalfield could be exploited or build the diversion, complete with higher linespeed, and allow unrestricted exploitation of the coalfield. My suspicion is, from a purely railway point of view, the diversion was the best choice especially as the cost of gaining a higher speed link between Doncaster and York was partly met by British Coal. Even though the expected expansion of coal-fired power generation didn't materialise the coal from the Selby field was produced rather more efficiently than from many other mines and allowed those mines to be closed sooner than they would otherwise have been so reducing overall costs.

The bigger question of the social costs arising from the dash-for-gas is another matter.

 

[Justin Smith]

The choices were: don't build the diversion and have to apply a permanent speed restriction to the existing route, don't build the diversion but maintain the existing linespeed by restricting how much of the coalfield could be exploited or build the diversion, complete with higher linespeed, and allow unrestricted exploitation of the coalfield. My suspicion is, from a purely railway point of view, the diversion was the best choice especially as the cost of gaining a higher speed link between Doncaster and York was partly met by British Coal. Even though the expected expansion of coal-fired power generation didn't materialise the coal from the Selby field was produced rather more efficiently than from many other mines and allowed those mines to be closed sooner than they would otherwise have been so reducing overall costs.

The bigger question of the social costs arising from the dash-for-gas is another matter.

I would agree that, from a railway perspective, the diversion was a positive, but if BR would have had to fund all of it out of their own pockets, would they have done so ?
And would it have been slightly more difficult to get planning permissions if it was purely a railway "to save a bit of time". That said the RM article states only one occupied building was demolished, plus a few unoccupied ones.

 

[Merthyr Imp]

An advantage of the diversion was that it cut out the Selby swing bridge with its speed restriction and probable future complication for electrification.

I wonder what solution would have been found if the diversion hadn't happened.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Another advantage of the diversion is that it cut out Selby!

Without it would Selby have as many services as it does today also would it be possible to have as many services to Hull as proposed under Northern Powerhouse Rail, without significant new infrastructure bypassing it ?

 

[whoosh]

Another advantage of the diversion is that it cut out Selby!

Without it would Selby have as many services as it does today also would it be possible to have as many services to Hull as proposed under Northern Powerhouse Rail, without significant new infrastructure bypassing it ?

Good question!

Perhaps the answer should be investigated and used as an example in debate over HS2.

 

[HSTEd]

The Selby coalfield still produced well over a hundred million tonnes of coal, even if it never produces as much as was expected.

The economics for the diversion probably still work.

 

[Halish Railway]

Looking at existing pre-1970s Railways, it seems like one other route would be continue on the Normanton lines as far as Monk Fryston and then build a new route to join the Knottingley to Doncaster route, with the curve at Joan Croft Jn straightened out, but that goes over Kellingley colliery. Had the coal fields not existed, that would have been the most cost-effective way to avoid the slow route through Selby.