R.I.P Leamside Line (in use from 1839 to 1991)

patrolman pete · 4 Oct 2012

ad:I read recently that the track was finally to be lifted on the Leamside Line and went looking on Saturday but saw no work going on so hoped it wasn't true, but i passed Fence Houses level crossing this morning and saw sleepers piled up , rails gone and JCBs on the line. So after many years it's all going back to nature and we can forget about this route ever seeing trains again no matter how hard we have wished for it reopening! I'm really annoyed they couldn't just leave it in place.

RailUK Forums

ainsworth74 · 4 Oct 2012

Well seeing as the trackbed is being kept (no plans to sell it off) and the rails and other infrastructure being removed would need replacing anyway I don't see how it's any more permanently closed than it was before?

Tubeboy · 4 Oct 2012

According to the latest issue of the Railway Magazine, the track is being removed to deter metal thieves. NR said the track is life expired, and if the line were reopened, possibly in 2019, the track would have to be replaced anyway.

NSEFAN · 4 Oct 2012

Tubeboy said:
According to the latest issue of the Railway Magazine, the track is being removed to deter metal thieves.

I have heard of an apocryphal story about a freight-only line which was mothballed by BR. Over one weekend, an organised gang of metal thieves turned up and stole the track. They used yellow vans with the BR logo on it, and were all dressed up in Hi-Viz, so the residents thought nothing of the work which was taking place.

The theft went undetected until BR wanted to reopen the line and found large chunks of it were missing!

patrolman pete · 4 Oct 2012

Surely removing the sleepers and the damage to the trackbed will massively increase the cost of reinstatement giving them the excuse that it will cost too much when 2019 comes and goes!

ainsworth74 · 4 Oct 2012

patrolman pete said:
Surely removing the sleepers and the damage to the trackbed will massively increase the cost of reinstatement giving them the excuse that it will cost too much when 2019 comes and goes!

What damage to the trackbed? And again they'd be renewing all of the infrastructure they're removing anyway so there's no change in the future costs of a reopening. Network Rail seem fairly confident that what there doing will have no impact on any future reopening schemes. The line is no more permanently closed than it was last week as far as I can see.

Eagle · 4 Oct 2012

ainsworth74 said:
...so there's no change in the future costs of a reopening.

In fact it'd be slightly cheaper as they don't have to pay for the cost of removing the old, dilapidated track (because they'll already have done it).

Jonny · 4 Oct 2012

Last time I looked at it, the trackbed was in a terrible state anyway so it would need a lot of work whichever way NwR look at it. Besides, the criminal fraternity has already bagged a mile or so worth of track from near Penshaw a few years back.

battledroid · 4 Oct 2012

NSEFAN said:
I have heard of an apocryphal story about a freight-only line which was mothballed by BR. Over one weekend, an organised gang of metal thieves turned up and stole the track. They used yellow vans with the BR logo on it, and were all dressed up in Hi-Viz, so the residents thought nothing of the work which was taking place.

The theft went undetected until BR wanted to reopen the line and found large chunks of it were missing!

Happened on the line that runs from Skelton Junction through Carrington Moss - huge trunks lifted through the night! Very impressive I must add!

Philip Elliott · 4 Oct 2012

ainsworth74 said:
Well seeing as the trackbed is being kept (no plans to sell it off) and the rails and other infrastructure being removed would need replacing anyway I don't see how it's any more permanently closed than it was before?

Having track in situ makes a massive legal difference. If the local council wanted to be build a new road across the route, it would have to build a bridge across it if the rail authority demanded it. However without the track, the council can compulsary purchase the land and not build a bridge making re-instatement a lot more difficult. Hopefully, NR will protect the trackbed but the record isn't good, for example:

Loanhead branch - sold to Sustrans for conversion to cyle route
Blyth Bates - sold to private developer
Denby (had been proposed for re-opening) - sold to local council for footpath
Calverton - sold to Nottinghamshire County Council (along with Cotgrave and possibly others)

Whilst the Leamside and other disused branches needed track replacing in order to re-open for passengers many could have re-opened with the exisiting track for freight. Would Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen have re-opened if the track wasn't still in situ? I seriously doubt it. Rainworth in Nottinghamshire would have re-opended had it not been for extensive track theft - NR have completely failed to manage their assets (track was stolen only 100 yards from an active signal box).

Stats · 4 Oct 2012

Philip Elliott said:
Having track in situ makes a massive legal difference. If the local council wanted to be build a new road across the route, it would have to build a bridge across it if the rail authority demanded it. However without the track, the council can compulsary purchase the land and not build a bridge making re-instatement a lot more difficult. Hopefully, NR will protect the trackbed but the record isn't good,

Fortunately, reopening the Leamside line is part of County Durham's and Tyne and Wear's Local Transport Plans so there it is safe from development for the forseeable future.

Whistler40145 · 5 Oct 2012

I presume the infrastructure will still be under the ownership of Network Rail or will it be leased or sold to Durham County Council?

michael769 · 5 Oct 2012

NSEFAN said:
I have heard of an apocryphal story about a freight-only line which was mothballed by BR. Over one weekend, an organised gang of metal thieves turned up and stole the track. They used yellow vans with the BR logo on it, and were all dressed up in Hi-Viz, so the residents thought nothing of the work which was taking place.

The theft went undetected until BR wanted to reopen the line and found large chunks of it were missing!

I think it would be more likely that BR took the line and then forget they had done so....

Xenophon PCDGS · 5 Oct 2012

battledroid said:
Happened on the line that runs from Skelton Junction through Carrington Moss

I still remember the thrice-weekly tanker train from the Partington industrial complex site heading off to South Wales in the 1990's on that line, which was the final train movement on that line.

RichmondCommu · 6 Oct 2012

Philip Elliott said:
Having track in situ makes a massive legal difference. If the local council wanted to be build a new road across the route, it would have to build a bridge across it if the rail authority demanded it. However without the track, the council can compulsary purchase the land and not build a bridge making re-instatement a lot more difficult. Hopefully, NR will protect the trackbed but the record isn't good, for example:

Denby (had been proposed for re-opening) - sold to local council for footpath

In all fairness there was never a chance in hell of the Denby branch being re-opened. Whilst it was sad to hear that the track had been lifted the line had no future.

Xenophon PCDGS · 6 Oct 2012

RichmondCommu said:
In all fairness there was never a chance in hell of the Denby branch being re-opened. Whilst it was sad to hear that the track had been lifted the line had no future.

I have some books and papers in my railway archives that have sections covering the Midland Railway (Ripley Branches) Act that was passed on 22nd July 1848 and historical sections dealing with the very large freight use of the lines in that area of Ripley up to Little Eaton. Papermakers, potteries and quarries were main freight users of this line.

The first passenger service to Ripley commenced in 1856 with three daily passenger trains (except Sunday) which were increased to a figure of five by 1903 which continued to Mansfield, via Langley Mill. Matters were never a great success in terms of passenger carrying. In 1906, a railmotor service was introduced, but this was not financially successful and was withdrawn by the start of the First World War. The final passenger service was withdrawn in 1930, some 82 years ago.

What eventually remained of the line was the section to Ripley to serve a coal washing plant. In 2012, the contractor Trackwork of Doncaster lifted the section from Holbrook level crossing to just short of the mainline connection near to Little Eaton.

AutoKratz · 21 Nov 2012

In actual fact Network Rail are fairly keen for the lines reopening and not too much should be read into the removal of the track as it is useless anyway.

Having read a few reports for my dissertation, there are some fairly positive statements being made by NR. Most are in regard to capacity enhancement as they admit the ECML in the area is already approaching capacity and they state:

"Analysis suggests that there would be a high value for money business case to re-instate the Leamside line if it allowed around seven additional freight trains per day to operate in each direction....the reopening of the Leamside line would be the best solution to provide further capacity to enable freight growth to be accommodated to 2030."

Roll on 2016....

transmanche · 22 Nov 2012

NSEFAN said:
I have heard of an apocryphal story about a freight-only line which was mothballed by BR. Over one weekend, an organised gang of metal thieves turned up and stole the track. They used yellow vans with the BR logo on it, and were all dressed up in Hi-Viz, so the residents thought nothing of the work which was taking place.

The theft went undetected until BR wanted to reopen the line and found large chunks of it were missing!

Well it's not apocryphal - and (except for the last part) it's true. And it happened on... the Leamside Line, back in 2003!

See the BBC news report.

Waverley125 · 22 Nov 2012

Leamside should be protected so it can re-open as part of the T&W. From Pelaw to Durham via Washington, the entire trackbed's there aside from the need for a flyover north of Durham station into north-facing bay platforms on the West side of the station. Would also allow extension from South Hylton to give Durham direct T&W access to Sunderland as well. Finish off with the East Boldon-Tyne Dock reopening and you have Airport-Newcastle-Pelaw-Washington-Durham & South Shields-East Boldon-Sunderland-South Hylton-Durham.

packetlos · 22 Nov 2012

Waverley125 said:
Leamside should be protected so it can re-open as part of the T&W. From Pelaw to Durham via Washington, the entire trackbed's there aside from the need for a flyover north of Durham station into north-facing bay platforms on the West side of the station. Would also allow extension from South Hylton to give Durham direct T&W access to Sunderland as well. Finish off with the East Boldon-Tyne Dock reopening and you have Airport-Newcastle-Pelaw-Washington-Durham & South Shields-East Boldon-Sunderland-South Hylton-Durham.

It's too far, if it ever reopens it will be as a heavy rail route electrified at 25Kv.

sprinterguy · 22 Nov 2012

Waverley125 said:
Leamside should be protected so it can re-open as part of the T&W. From Pelaw to Durham via Washington, the entire trackbed's there aside from the need for a flyover north of Durham station into north-facing bay platforms on the West side of the station. Would also allow extension from South Hylton to give Durham direct T&W access to Sunderland as well. Finish off with the East Boldon-Tyne Dock reopening and you have Airport-Newcastle-Pelaw-Washington-Durham & South Shields-East Boldon-Sunderland-South Hylton-Durham.

If a north facing bay was put in on the West side of Durham station then it would cut off access to the car park. I can't see the Tyne & Wear Metro being extended along the Leamside line further than Washington, or perhaps Penshaw at a push, and even that would not be possible until new rolling stock is procured in 10 - 15 years time.

tbtc · 22 Nov 2012

packetlos said:
It's too far, if it ever reopens it will be as a heavy rail route electrified at 25Kv.

Precisely - all the way to Sunderland is long enough on a toiletless Metro, without trying to expand it more.

If the Leamside has a future then it's as a heavy rail line - a freight line to avoid a bottleneck on the ECML or a "fast" line for passenger services that don't stop at Durham.

Waverley125 · 22 Nov 2012

it's not a fast route given the curves at Victoria & Pelaw, it's probably as slow as via Durham. And a T&W train is perfectly good for going into Newcastle from Washington, while from Durham there's already a fast heavy rail route.

Frothy · 22 Nov 2012

Waverley125 said:
it's not a fast route given the curves at Victoria & Pelaw, it's probably as slow as via Durham. And a T&W train is perfectly good for going into Newcastle from Washington, while from Durham there's already a fast heavy rail route.

Perhaps not fast in a speed sense... services passing through Durham without stopping could be rerouted via the Leamside line, providing necessary additional line capacity. This might see the creation of a local service and new stations along both the Durham and Leamside lines.

I could see stations at Usworth, Washington, Penshaw, Fencehouses, Belmont and Ferryhill on the Leamside line if they reopen it for heavy rail, Birtley and Langley Moor too on the Durham line. Both lines pass through heavily populated areas.

SteveP29 · 24 Nov 2012

Frothy said:
Birtley and Langley Moor too on the Durham line. Both lines pass through heavily populated areas.

I think Birtley is sufficiently served by buses to Newcastle and Chester le Street, I don't think there's any need for a station there.

The 8-10 minutes for a train journey Chester le Street- Newcastle (and vice versa) is about right and I feel a lot of the traffic that uses these services would prefer not to have their journeys extended by an additional stop at Birtley (and having grown up in Birtley, I can assure you that there's next to FA there and the best thing about the place are the roads out!)

Kali · 24 Nov 2012

This does make you wonder a little, that at this point "what is a line". I presume there's no usable passenger facilities after 48 years, there is now no "primary" railway infrastructure ( track/signalling/cabling etc ), so basically you're left with some architectural features and some earthworks which presumably haven't had any maintenance for quite a while. At this point given rebuilding a line like this is almost building it from scratch, maybe it's time to check the route itself and see if it can't be improved, rather than slavishly following the existing route?

I presume there is a legal minefield though, it certainly sounds like the sort of situation that would cause one.

ReverendFozz · 24 Nov 2012

Seems most of the track is lifted now, certainly through Carville and Belmont

Frothy · 24 Nov 2012

ReverendFozz said:
Seems most of the track is lifted now, certainly through Carville and Belmont

Passing through Shincliffe on Monday the track was still there, next monday might be a different story

Sidious · 25 Nov 2012

Tubeboy said:
According to the latest issue of the Railway Magazine, the track is being removed to deter metal thieves. NR said the track is life expired, and if the line were reopened, possibly in 2019, the track would have to be replaced anyway.

I went to have a look at the work yesterday and went to the Belmont area of Durham.

The track was certainly not 'life expired' although Network Rail have been peddling this for some time. In fact the track was mostly concrete sleeper and continuous welded rail. It had shown signs of embankment subsidence in some areas, particularly between the A1M and High Shincliffe, but the track was in excellent condition.

The Concrete Sleepers are being piled up for removal by road, and I would guess will be re-used. Some of the track-work is badly corroded.

I feel quite sad about this. I believe a real opportunity has been missed to put the line to good use. It runs through significantly populated areas, and would have made for a good extension to the Tyne and Wear metro network both from Newcastle and South Hylton as far as Durham Belmont, where the existing Durham City Bus Park and Ride station is. Given that the A1M into Newcastle is at gridlock for 3 hours every morning between Washington Services and The Metro Centre this could have been a useful alternative to get into Newcastle City Centre. It would have also made an excellent Tees-Tyne route connecting to Stockton via the Stillington line, thus re-opening a station at Ferryhill which is an expanding town.

I personally don't see the tracks ever being re-laid and the asset stripping which is going on is the final death knell in the line. I hope that time proves me wrong.

I didn't have my camera with me but I will return in the next couple of weeks and try and get some last photos.

Eagle · 25 Nov 2012

Sidious said:
The track was certainly not 'life expired' although Network Rail have been peddling this for some time. In fact the track was mostly concrete sleeper and continuous welded rail. It had shown signs of embankment subsidence in some areas, particularly between the A1M and High Shincliffe, but the track was in excellent condition.

So you're trusting your own opinion, after briefly seeing these rails from a distance, over those of professionals who actually work with rails and sleepers, who have had months or potentially years to examine and test and decide whether or not the track is suitable or not?

Honestly, the levels of expertise some people assume they have...

R.I.P Leamside Line (in use from 1839 to 1991)

Member

RailUK Forums

Forum Staff

Member

Established Member

Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

New Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member