richard wrote:i see there it is described a range of Postassium salts - I understood it as primarily potassium sulphate. As well as using the K for NPK fertilisers, the sulphate is then useful for sulphuric acid production. So I think is probably what most of the North Sea evaporite potash is.
The Permian of the Britain and the North Sea include a number of evaporite cycles - where an entire interior sea completely evaporated leaving various salts behind. The salt deposits of Cheshire are another mined deposit from this sequence. As are the gypsum and anhydrite deposits found in various places (the gypsum operation just east of Leeds that closed about 20 years ago is an example).
The "Zechstein Salt" (Zechstein is a name of just one of the cycles) is responsible for the salt traps that dominate the southern North Sea gas fields.
So all in all, the Permian evaporites are economically very important for Britain!
My first thought regarding a location "between Whitby and Scarborough" is that this must be a very deep mine? Without looking at maps and boreholes, I would think it would be deeper than Boulby.
Richard
This mining website has some useful info (though again it is largely speculation) and includes a link to the website of the York Potash project.
Thanks for the link - yes virtually all speculation, but more technical in nature.
Solution mining makes some sense, although it will all come down to basic cost.
Although the Zechstein does cover large areas, the thicknesses of the different salt layers do vary. Hence the (NaCl) salt mining in Cheshire, the gypsum mining east of Leeds, and the potash under North Yorkshire.
PinzaC55 wrote:
"Im curious to know where exactly you would realign the line from hawsker to between sleights and ruswarp.
You would have to come across sneatonthorpe or ugglebarnby somewhere then to the right of oakley bank. Is there any actual plans or are we just speculating.
The gradient there is quite steep in places."
Only speculation as far as I can see. Although the mining company are not short of money they'd hardly want to chuck it away on a piece of railway which would be beset by planning regulations and be hugely expensive. If the trains were "topped and tailed" with suitably powerful locos, reversing at Prospect Hill need be no more time consuming than it was for DMU's in the 1960's. It might also have benefits for Whitby as the station might get upgraded signalling whereas
currently it has none.
Route of any alignment was just my speculation.
However the would be to remove any top and tail working, not just for operational reasons but also because of the need to maximise train length and this would not be possible by using the original layout at Whitby and Westcliffe due to available length for run rounds.
Battersby chord has been talked about for a number of years and is not just from this speculation.
"However the would be to remove any top and tail working, not just for operational reasons but also because of the need to maximise train length and this would not be possible by using the original layout at Whitby and Westcliffe due to available length for run rounds"
If they were topping and tailing they wouldn't need to "run round" at Prospect Hill - that's the whole point of topping and tailing. Do you know how long the trains will be and have you measured the potential reversing space at Prospect Hill and Whitby?
PinzaC55 wrote:"However the would be to remove any top and tail working, not just for operational reasons but also because of the need to maximise train length and this would not be possible by using the original layout at Whitby and Westcliffe due to available length for run rounds"
If they were topping and tailing they wouldn't need to "run round" at Prospect Hill - that's the whole point of topping and tailing. Do you know how long the trains will be and have you measured the potential reversing space at Prospect Hill and Whitby?
would prospect hill now be a bit steep for heavy frieght trains would you not now require a banker/or a extra loco to assist the ups and downs plus possibly another train crew
PinzaC55 wrote:"However the would be to remove any top and tail working, not just for operational reasons but also because of the need to maximise train length and this would not be possible by using the original layout at Whitby and Westcliffe due to available length for run rounds"
If they were topping and tailing they wouldn't need to "run round" at Prospect Hill - that's the whole point of topping and tailing. Do you know how long the trains will be and have you measured the potential reversing space at Prospect Hill and Whitby?
would prospect hill now be a bit steep for heavy frieght trains would you not now require a banker/or a extra loco to assist the ups and downs plus possibly another train crew
That's a good point but it has been 46 years since a train tackled the Prospect Hill curve and loco power and braking systems have improved a hell of a lot since then. I can't remember what the gradient is but I suppose somebody would be able to work out the necessary brake power and so on.
The projected 100,000 tons per week is about 15 trains per day each way, assuming 6 day working, that is going to put a huge pressure on the largely single Esk Valley line. At the very least it will need several of the passing loops to be reinstated, and, most likely, the section from Grosmont to Whitby to be re-doubled (another short-sighted economy measure). In addition the reversals at Whitby will take possibly 1/2 hour each, so 30 movements will end up taking all day and require a full time pilot loco.
This does not leave much room for the service trains or the NYMR trains, and I can envisage the nimbys having a field day over the proposals.
I think it would be wonderful to see the Esk Valley line revitalised and actually earning its keep, but think that the problems could prove too much.
One solution would be to reopen either Pickering to Rillington or Whitby to Scarborough as well and take some of the output that way as well. I know that there are huge problems to overcome with either of these alternatives, but the price of potash is high and there is huge global demand for it, so the money and the incentive are both in the equation.
60041 wrote:
I think it would be wonderful to see the Esk Valley line revitalised and actually earning its keep, but think that the problems could prove too much.
One solution would be to reopen either Pickering to Rillington or Whitby to Scarborough as well and take some of the output that way as well. I know that there are huge problems to overcome with either of these alternatives, but the price of potash is high and there is huge global demand for it, so the money and the incentive are both in the equation.
The only problem with that is that the destination for the trains is the dedicated Potash loading facility on Teeside.
Lots of excess mileage being run and another reversal at York instead of Battersby.
"One solution would be to reopen either Pickering to Rillington or Whitby to Scarborough as well and take some of the output that way as well."
Scarborough-Whitby; rebuild bridges at Fyling Hall, 2 at RHB, repair Ravenscar Tunnel, level crossings at Hayburn Wyke and Cloughton, demolish housing estate and rebuild bridge at Scalby, repair Scalby viaduct, demolish Sainsburys, repair Gallows Close Tunnel....oh and lay 18 miles of track and associated signalling and pointwork plus physical junction at Scarborough.
Grosmont - Rillington; negotiate train paths with the NYMR on their busy single track line, pound the hell out of their infrastructure, rearrange the roads in Pickering and demolish part of a housing estate, lay six miles of track with innumerable level crossings and lay a physical junction at Rillington.
PinzaC55 wrote:"One solution would be to reopen either Pickering to Rillington or Whitby to Scarborough as well and take some of the output that way as well."
Scarborough-Whitby; rebuild bridges at Fyling Hall, 2 at RHB, repair Ravenscar Tunnel, level crossings at Hayburn Wyke and Cloughton, demolish housing estate and rebuild bridge at Scalby, repair Scalby viaduct, demolish Sainsburys, repair Gallows Close Tunnel....oh and lay 18 miles of track and associated signalling and pointwork plus physical junction at Scarborough.
Grosmont - Rillington; negotiate train paths with the NYMR on their busy single track line, pound the hell out of their infrastructure, rearrange the roads in Pickering and demolish part of a housing estate, lay six miles of track with innumerable level crossings and lay a physical junction at Rillington.
I didn't say that they would be practical solutions
All right then - what about Whitby to Boulby!!
Seriously though, I wish them well with their plans and seriously hope that they come to fruition but can't help wondering if the combination of logistics and the nimbys will scupper the project.
richard wrote:They could always take it out by ship!
We would be talking of smaller vessels but they could take at least as much as a train. Richard
Certainly not at Whitby. I can't imagine them being happy with an industrial scale loading facility being grafted onto what is basically a town given over to tourism.
And DEFINITELY not Robin Hood's Bay!
As I stated before Whitby is now closed commercially and a ship loading facility in the area has also been discounted as far as I know.
As for using the NYMR we could always use the alignment of the Helmsley branch and reinstate that through Kirkymoorside and Gilling to the ECML. One of the reasons why the branch was opened in the first place was to shift Iron ore from Grosmont to Teeside before the line through Battersby was built. Although a link to the Rosedale branch was also considered.
52D wrote:Wasnt the site of Kirby Moorside station recently cleared and built on?
Yes.
Thinking practically and referring to what was said earlier abut "Nimbys" the only people I can see being affected by the idea of relaying Hawsker to Whitby are a) the owners of Hawsker station, the walkers who use the path and the NYMR.
Let's say though that they decide to redouble Whitby to Grosmont? I think it would be about 6 miles of single track and signals and the only extra stuff required would be to reinstate the platforms at Ruswarp and Sleights. I'm not sure whether the junction at Grosmont is worked from the box there or a ground frame but in any case it could be converted to motor operation at Sirius' expense so everybody would be happy?
The NYMR would have smooth running to Whitby and the only part of the line which might get congested would have extra capacity so it would be a win/win situation.
and referring to what was said earlier abut "Nimbys" the only people I can see being affected by the idea of relaying Hawsker to Whitby are a) the owners of Hawsker station, the walkers who use the path and the NYMR.