Whitby, Scarborough and Boulby

[seacoaler]

Would the design loadings for Larpool viaduct ( across the Esk between Hawsker and Whitby) be able to carry potash trains ?
At least it still exists .

[lnerjp]

Would the design loadings for Larpool viaduct ( across the Esk between Hawsker and Whitby) be able to carry potash trains ?

It's not just Larpool viaduct that would need engineering work, there are ten bridges between Whitby and Battersby currently in use which have restrictions on them. And the fact that the branch is operated no signaller token remote,the branch could be upgraded but it would cost a lot of money.

J.P.

[PinzaC55]

Would the design loadings for Larpool viaduct ( across the Esk between Hawsker and Whitby) be able to carry potash trains ?

It's not just Larpool viaduct that would need engineering work, there are ten bridges between Whitby and Battersby currently in use which have restrictions on them. And the fact that the branch is operated no signaller token remote,the branch could be upgraded but it would cost a lot of money.

J.P.

Luckily the company have a lot of money and will have even more when the mine is open.

[Bryan]

I believe that NWR are currently planning to upgrade 4 of the offending bridges on the Esk Valley.
Taking Bridge 30 on the NYMR as a model for at least 2 of them. But doing it in a shorter time span.

[PinzaC55]

Sounds like NR have more faith in rail as a serious transport medium than some of the posters here?

[third-rail]

new double tracked bridges? i hope.

[lnerjp]

Sounds like NR have more faith in rail as a serious transport medium than some of the posters here?

I think that is a little harsh, I would expect any member of this forum would have a interest in and would therefore favour rail. What I personally do not have faith in is politicians and large companys to make socially virtous decisions. If a pipeline works out to be cheaper than rail, then a pipeline it will be, even though improvements to the rail infastructure would benefit the surounding community, probably even after the mine closed.

new double tracked bridges? i hope.

The 4 bridges that are being replaced are on the Battersby to Grosmont section of the line which I belive was only ever single track.


J.P.

[PinzaC55]

[quote] I think that is a little harsh, I would expect any member of this forum would have a interest in and would therefore favour rail. What I personally do not have faith in is politicians and large companys to make socially virtous decisions. If a pipeline works out to be cheaper than rail, then a pipeline it will be, even though improvements to the rail infastructure would benefit the surounding community, probably even after the mine closed.[quote]

I think it was entirely reasonable and fair. If you read the posts in this thread some people appear to be more interested in why it SHOULDN'T go by rail than why it should. I guess most of us here are enthusiasts of one sort or another, but what livery Flying Scotsman is in is less relevant to the future of the national rail network than getting REAL traffic onto the railway, where it belongs.

[Coboman]

I don't think theres much of an option other than rail, Piping it will have huge problems, not only the vast distance, but all the valleys that will have to be crossed. With a fluid its quite easy to cross a deep valley, you just use a higher pressure pipe and the let the fluid do its business to get back up the other side. With powders or sublimations you cannot do that and I cannot see the park authorities standing for viaducts across every valley, or the company building a pumping station at every valley (another park authority problem). At least with rail you are not altering the lay of the land as you really only laying track on whats already there, and yes big freight trains are not the most pleasant thing to look at if your not a train ned like us, but at least its only passing a few times a day and not a constant procession of lorries on over crowded roads, or horrid viaducts over every valley that are always there whenever you look.

[seacoaler]

Going over old ground here again, but you also have to move massive quantities of rock salt which is a saleable by product and is ideal for rail movement.

[third-rail]

it would also be possible to build an underground tunnel with convayers to the nearest rail head which would be less intrusive to the scenary

[Coboman]

it would also be possible to build an underground tunnel with convayers to the nearest rail head which would be less intrusive to the scenary

I think the cost of that would be prohibitive, its a long way for any railhead. Theres a fair amount of unstable ground in that area too.

[Bryan]

From the Yorkshire Post
Looks like its a pipeline then.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at- ... _1_4089618

[PinzaC55]

That's a shame if it happens. The construction work for a pipeline will have a devastating impact on the appearance of the area whereas taking it out by rail would have had little impact.

[60044]

I'm all in favour of moving the stuff by rail, but one has to wonder if it would be feasible. The tonnages being talked about would seem likely to swamp the branch and make it very difficult for the current passenger service and the NYMR service to continue, which doesn't represent a major step forward to me. Yes, the Whitby-Grosmont section could be reinstated as double track, but the old single line formation to Battersby would present a major bottleneck, as would the need to reverse at Battersby. My imagination can stretch to upgrading of the existing infrastructure, but it baulks at converting the whole line to Battersby to double track and eliminating the need to reverse.

As for the pipeline and its feasibility, I feel that if the company is talking about it they must have done their research into the idea and be more technically informed than the majority of commenters on this forum!