York Station

As this mainly affects trains after 1900 perhaps it should go into that forum but as the station was built in 1877 I've put it here in pre 1900. The politics of why the station is where it is are quite involved but basically the powers that be in York did not want the new station within the city walls (as the old one had been, the hole punched through the walls is still there you can see it from the opposite side of the road to the current station).

Given that why on earth did they design it to have such a curve that means that non stop trains have to slow down really drastically. Then, this is the bit that is post 1900, didn't the LNER and BR use the freight avoiding line which is still curved but not as drastically for the non stop trains (it certainly wasn't for changing crews, that was what the corridor tender was for). It wouldn't have been too hard to keep a couple of lines free for these trains or to build extra ones.

Which leads to the next question, why isn't York on a loop of the ECML as Northampton is on the WCML? Was it sheer inertia after George Hudson got the lines into York in the first place? I know that originally it was due to landowners in the Vale of York not being willing to sell their land (this affected a lot of early railway lines) but once the Race to the North started surely it should have crossed someone's mind in the NER. They could have changed engines at Doncaster.
 
A lot of the answers to your questions can be summed up by the fact that you are overlooking York's industrial and cultural significance as a railway hub in itself.

The reason the new station was built outside of the city walls was not so much a result of the civic leaders kerfuffling but actually more to do with the fact that the old station was a terminus. Outgoing trains had to reverse out to rejoin the line up to Newcastle etc whilst the new station, outside the walls, allowed for a through connection.

Whilst I'm not entirely sure why the curve is so pronounced [possibly to do with flood plains in York itself] its worth keeping in mind that in 1877 that wouldn't have been as much of an issue for speed as it was in the twentieth century.

But the key thing here is that York is a hub. Both for freight [the National Railway Museum occupies the site of the large freight depot] and for visitors [LNER and later BR made HUGE investments in funneling passengers and tourists into York]. In the Race to the North York continued to be a valuable destination for visitors - why loop it when a considerable number of your passengers want to get on/off there on the express trains?

I'm less knowledgeable on the tender-corridor question I'm afraid.
 
York is a railway hub thanks to George Hudson before his financial shenanigans caught up with him. It became a major railway hub because the railways were already there (it is a chicken and egg situation after the initial construction). The carriage works were there because the railways were, not because York already had a huge industrial base.

Take your point about speed not being important in 1877,. However I'm not asking that York not be on the ECML but why is the station so curved and why in the 20th cenury neither the LNER nor BR used the existing avoiding lines for the non stop trains.

York was always going to be on a railway line because of its cultural significance and being roughly half way between London and Edinburgh. However Lets by 1877 the mainline already should have gone to Leeds!

(By the way I'm not really up for a York screw, I'd be much happier if Clifton was Yorkshire Crickets HQ rather than Headingley, York City at least did a Norwich bouncing between Premier League and the Championship and we had a successful Rugby team of either or both codes but that's ASB territory)
 
York is a railway hub thanks to George Hudson before his financial shenanigans caught up with him. It became a major railway hub because the railways were already there (it is a chicken and egg situation after the initial construction). The carriage works were there because the railways were, not because York already had a huge industrial base.

Yes, you are right about that - I think on reflection I actually meant just a "hub" in general. Part of the reason Hudson's scheme is so effective, I think, is because York is a natural centre in the 1830s when he is talking about building the railway there - investors can plausibly believe that it is a solid investment and a useful line. My original point was [poorly phrased] that it makes no sense to put York on a loop when the initial lines are built and, for most of the pre-1945 period, makes no sense to isolate it on a loop.

Take your point about speed not being important in 1877,. However I'm not asking that York not be on the ECML but why is the station so curved and why in the 20th cenury neither the LNER nor BR used the existing avoiding lines for the non stop trains.

York was always going to be on a railway line because of its cultural significance and being roughly half way between London and Edinburgh. However Lets by 1877 the mainline already should have gone to Leeds!

I must say I'm not an expert on freight or non-stop, but I think there are a couple of points worth thinking about:
*York is a hub, for a number of reasons, and at least a decent proportion of ECML traffic is intended to stop there.
*LNER and later BR invested heavily in the tourist industry in York - again not precluding a loop line but being able to market York on the express market in London was a big selling point.
*Whilst Beeching's figures are not always the best, its worth noting that York is bringing in £5000+ in passenger receipts whilst Leeds is c.2000-5000 - a reasonable measure of demand c1960s.
*BR was not always the great innovator in track - remember by the time speed is really a problem on curves (post-1945) BR has begun to invest in the world's first tilting technology. Why make costly changes to the infrastructure when APT is going to eradicate the problem when it arrives? Obviously we know that APT was doomed as a project, but that's hindsight.


(By the way I'm not really up for a York screw, I'd be much happier if Clifton was Yorkshire Crickets HQ rather than Headingley, York City at least did a Norwich bouncing between Premier League and the Championship and we had a successful Rugby team of either or both codes but that's ASB territory)

Haha! No, I appreciate the question. But I think if you want that sort of sports prowess it doesn't have to be ASB at all. But you'd need much more than a railway change to make it happen. You'd need to change some key elements of the social and economic history of the city.
 
You'd need to change some key elements of the social and economic history of the city.

I'm up for that challenge even though it's all post 1900
1. Cravens and Terrys still have factories in York.
2. Redfearns still has its furnaces near Fossgate
3. Rowntrees is at least independent if not still owned by the Rowntrees.
4. The Sugar Beet factory is still going (that smell during the Campaign always let me know that I was back when visiting my parents at Christmas)
5. And for good measure there is still some sort of carriage building at the Carriage Works(oh the joy of trying to get down Holgate Road at 4 30pm when the shift ended :D)

Anyway back to the OP
All the stopping expresses would still stop at York so that the Tourist trade etc still functions as per LNER's and BR's (and prior to that GNR's and NER's) wishes for revenue. My question is why the non stop trains still went through York Station instead of using the avoiding lines if neither LNER nor BR were willing to build a completely new line avoiding York altogether (which isn't a surprise cash was tight especially for the LNER).
 
Last edited:
Top