Servicing Teesside After Darlington Station Redevelopment

[teessider]

Local newspapers reported this week that Teesside Airport would not receive a regular service again until 2024 at the earliest, after the three new platforms are due to come into service at Darlington. Which got me thinking; what sort of local service pattern should Teesside see in general from 2024?

The Darligton upgrade means through services to Bishop Auckland will now be split at Darlington. There's talk of extending from Saltburn to Loftus, although it seems unlikely that will be taken forward in my view. Middlesbrough should have it's new third platform by then, even if it's without the glitzy new north entrance that was planned. Also in the news recently, it has been confirmed that TPE will extend their Manchester service from Redcar to Saltburn. Reinstating platform two at Hartlepool was also in the pipeline.

My, hopefully not too fanciful, hope would be that Darlington-Saltburn increases to 3tph. If Teesside Airport's passenger numbers increase then adding that back as a regular call. Hopefully South Bank and Redcar BS stations will be well utilised in the redevelopment of the steelworks site/freeport.

With the extra capacity at Darlington, perhaps a regular Darlington-Hartlepool service could be introduced. It shouldn't impede TPE and LNER capacity to Middlesbrough much as there's only a short stretch of crossover at Eaglescliffe. This would surely help reduce congestion on the A19 Tees Viaduct, without needing to build a new road bridge.

Also reducing A19 congestion, will the the new through platform allow some Saltburn-Darlington services to continue to Newcastle? I guess it would have to be in conjunction with reinstating the Leamside line.

What are other people's thoughts?

 

[markindurham]

The problem with the station at Teesside Airport is that it's not exactly convenient for the terminal building. The question is - how to resolve this? Initially I can only see a shuttle bus as an option. I fear, though, that this might be a "Chicken & Egg" situation. We would need to see passenger numbers grow first before a lot of money would be spent on the link, but would people be put off using it because the link isn't good? Tricky.

As for Hartlepool - Darlington shuttles; these do operate at times, IIRC. Usually when other lines, such as Northallerton - Eaglescliffe are shut for maintenance. There may well be a business case for making the service permanent, or certainly in the peaks.

 

[teessider]

The problem with the station at Teesside Airport is that it's not exactly convenient for the terminal building. The question is - how to resolve this? Initially I can only see a shuttle bus as an option. I fear, though, that this might be a "Chicken & Egg" situation. We would need to see passenger numbers grow first before a lot of money would be spent on the link, but would people be put off using it because the link isn't good? Tricky.

As for Hartlepool - Darlington shuttles; these do operate at times, IIRC. Usually when other lines, such as Northallerton - Eaglescliffe are shut for maintenance. There may well be a business case for making the service permanent, or certainly in the peaks.

Yes, shuttle bus is the only feasible option but that's enough to put a lot of people off switching from car because of the extra hassle. As you say, it won't be considered until/if air passenger numbers recover. Also, the footbridge at the station is structurally unsafe apparently so only one platform can be used currently.

I didn't realise there was already occasional Hartlepool-Darlington shuttles. Considering the size and proximity of the two towns, I'm sure the case for a regular service would be strong.

 

[IanXC]

Theres no infrastructure reason why the Bishop Auckland - Saltburn services would be split at Darlington, and I've not seen any formal documents suggesting they would be.

If you're suggesting they would be, and then increase the DAR-SLB to 3tph *and* add a DAR-HPL we'd be looking at:

3tph DAR-SLB
1tph DAR-HPL
1tph NCL-MBR
1pth MBR-NNT/WTB
1tph MIA-YRK-MBR-SLB
0.5tph KGX-YRK-MBR

I'm inclined to think even with the proposed infrastructure improvements thats probably too much! 4tph into Saltburn... really?

I'd think adding the DAR-HPL is the logical next step if the service in the area is to be further increased.

 

[teessider]

Theres no infrastructure reason why the Bishop Auckland - Saltburn services would be split at Darlington, and I've not seen any formal documents suggesting they would be.

If you're suggesting they would be, and then increase the DAR-SLB to 3tph *and* add a DAR-HPL we'd be looking at:

3tph DAR-SLB
1tph DAR-HPL
1tph NCL-MBR
1pth MBR-NNT/WTB
1tph MIA-YRK-MBR-SLB
0.5tph KGX-YRK-MBR

I'm inclined to think even with the proposed infrastructure improvements thats probably too much! 4tph into Saltburn... really?

I'd think adding the DAR-HPL is the logical next step if the service in the area is to be further increased.

I'm sure I've read on the forum (not sure which thread) that the plan is to split Bishop-Saltburn once Darlington station is upgraded, reducing conflicts with the ECML. It might have only been speculation though.

Yes, you're right, considering the TPE extension the existing 2tph Dar-SLB would be sufficient. The 1tph Middlesbrough-Newcastle via Hartlepool would need to be kept as well as the service via Darlington to keep Hartlepool connected. Both routes could terminate at Nunthorpe to reduce hold ups at Middlesbrough? So maybe:

2tph DAR-SLB
1tph DAR-HPL
1tph NCL-DAR-NNT
1tph NCL-HPL-NNT/WTB*
1tph MIA-YRK-MBR-SLB
0.5tph KGX-YRK-MBR

Every other hour on to Whitby?

 

[IanXC]

I'm sure I've read on the forum (not sure which thread) that the plan is to split Bishop-Saltburn once Darlington station is upgraded, reducing conflicts with the ECML. It might have only been speculation though.

Yes, you're right, considering the TPE extension the existing 2tph Dar-SLB would be sufficient. The 1tph Middlesbrough-Newcastle via Hartlepool would need to be kept as well as the service via Darlington to keep Hartlepool connected. Both routes could terminate at Nunthorpe to reduce hold ups at Middlesbrough? So maybe:

2tph DAR-SLB
1tph DAR-HPL
1tph NCL-DAR-NNT
1tph NCL-HPL-NNT/WTB*
1tph MIA-YRK-MBR-SLB
0.5tph KGX-YRK-MBR

Every other hour on to Whitby?

Oh so you've now added a NCL-DAR-MBR-NNT additionally? That makes 4tph DAR-EAG?

Keeping everything on the Whitby branch (including Nunthorpe services) standalone has long been proposed in the ECML recast for performance reasons. The third platform at Middlesbrough will remove any suggestion this is a performance risk.

 

[zwk500]

The problem with the station at Teesside Airport is that it's not exactly convenient for the terminal building. The question is - how to resolve this? Initially I can only see a shuttle bus as an option. I fear, though, that this might be a "Chicken & Egg" situation. We would need to see passenger numbers grow first before a lot of money would be spent on the link, but would people be put off using it because the link isn't good? Tricky.

I fear the only way to make a regular service at Teesside Airport viable would be building a new town immediately to the north. However given few people want to live so close to an airport, the more sensible option would seem to be just close the station and run a shuttle bus from Dinsdale station (or even Darlington). Electric vehicles with Fast Charge are probably not far off the required range now.

 

[teessider]

Oh so you've now added a NCL-DAR-MBR-NNT additionally? That makes 4tph DAR-EAG?

Keeping everything on the Whitby branch (including Nunthorpe services) standalone has long been proposed in the ECML recast for performance reasons. The third platform at Middlesbrough will remove any suggestion this is a performance risk.

Additional to the existing NCL-HPL-NNT yes (so 2tph Middlesbrough to Newcastle, one on each route). Perhaps only 1tph DAR-SLB in that case?!

That would make sense, keeping Whitby branch standalone.

 

[lachlan]

Having used the Bishop Auckland service from Shildon to Saltburn, it would be a shame to see it split. That being said, a frequency increase and well-timed changes could make up for it.

 

[teessider]

Having used the Bishop Auckland service from Shildon to Saltburn, it would be a shame to see it split. That being said, a frequency increase and well-timed changes could make up for it.

A long trek from the west side of the station to the new platforms too!

 

[swt_passenger]

Theres no infrastructure reason why the Bishop Auckland - Saltburn services would be split at Darlington, and I've not seen any formal documents suggesting they would be.

The wording in the 2020 Network Rail source document is a “may require”, so it has at least been officially considered:

“Subject to detailed timetabling assessment during development, the benefits of the recommended option may require that the through Saltburn to/from Bishop Auckland service is split into two services at Darlington to accommodate nine or more passenger services through Darlington on the ECML.“
from page 23 of:

https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Church-Fenton-to-Newcastle-Strategic-Advice-2020.pdf

 

[David 90825]

As for Hartlepool - Darlington shuttles; these do operate at times, IIRC. Usually when other lines, such as Northallerton - Eaglescliffe are shut for maintenance. There may well be a business case for making the service permanent, or certainly in the peaks.

The only Darlington to Hartlepool trains operate on Sundays, 1313 & 1715 from Darlington with returns from Hartlepool at 1425 & 1825. These journeys were retained when the Mon-Sat journeys were withdrawn. The 1425 from Hartlepool is the only train to call at Teesside Airport.

I fear the only way to make a regular service at Teesside Airport viable would be building a new town immediately to the north. However given few people want to live so close to an airport, the more sensible option would seem to be just close the station and run a shuttle bus from Dinsdale station (or even Darlington). Electric vehicles with Fast Charge are probably not far off the required range now.

The best option for Teesside Airport is to close it completely as proposed in 2012, Ambitious proposal for new North-East airport should spark new debate | The Northern Echo This would allow the existing airport site to be used for a new housing estate thus obviating the need to use current farmland to the north. Not only would new housing allow for a decent train service but a decent half hourly bus services to/from Darlington (increased frequency on Arriva's 12), Stockton (new service) and Middlesbrough/Yarm could be introduced (extension of Arriva's 17 and increased frequency.

 

[teessider]

The best option for Teesside Airport is to close it completely as proposed in 2012, Ambitious proposal for new North-East airport should spark new debate | The Northern Echo This would allow the existing airport site to be used for a new housing estate thus obviating the need to use current farmland to the north. Not only would new housing allow for a decent train service but a decent half hourly bus services to/from Darlington (increased frequency on Arriva's 12), Stockton (new service) and Middlesbrough/Yarm could be introduced (extension of Arriva's 17 and increased frequency.

Totally agree!

 

[markindurham]

The only Darlington to Hartlepool trains operate on Sundays, 1313 & 1715 from Darlington with returns from Hartlepool at 1425 & 1825. These journeys were retained when the Mon-Sat journeys were withdrawn. The 1425 from Hartlepool is the only train to call at Teesside Airport.


The best option for Teesside Airport is to close it completely as proposed in 2012, Ambitious proposal for new North-East airport should spark new debate | The Northern Echo This would allow the existing airport site to be used for a new housing estate thus obviating the need to use current farmland to the north. Not only would new housing allow for a decent train service but a decent half hourly bus services to/from Darlington (increased frequency on Arriva's 12), Stockton (new service) and Middlesbrough/Yarm could be introduced (extension of Arriva's 17 and increased frequency.

Thanks for the gen regarding the DAR-HPL trains.

Regarding closing Teesside Airport - I think that that ship has sailed, now that the local authority has bought it. IIRC it was the previous owners, Peel Ports, who were wanting to maximise return on their asset, but as we were only just recovering from the 2009 banking crash, it possibly wasn't the best time to be trying to sell it...

 

[teessider]

The Gazette reported yesterday that the second platform at Hartlepool is planned to reopen in 2023, I think that's the first time a timescale has been given.

Plan to reopen unused platform at Hartlepool before Summer 2023

A target date for reopening an unused platform at one of the region’s busiest stations has been revealed.

Leaders want to reinstate Hartlepool’s second platform before the return of the Tall Ships in 2023 in a bid to increase services to the town and boost capacity on the wider rail network.

The project is also vying to create a second station entrance linking to the marina.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think the future of the Bishop branch is an interesting question once the Darlington upgrade (see here for more discussion) is complete. My experience of the through service (which is mostly by observation rather than use) is that most trains have around a 95%+ turnover of passengers at Darlington. I've definitely seen trains where no-one has travelled through at all. But on average it only ever seems to numbers which could be easily counted on one hand. This isn't to say that there aren't trains which don't have good cross Darlington loadings but they do seem, from my observation, to be the minority.

So cutting the service, in my view, is not particularly disastrous as you're not going to accidently cut a vital flow of people from Heighington to Allens West or something

That being said maintaining the connectivity if possible would be nice to have. I do wonder if reducing the conflicting moves in general in the station means that there would still be sufficient capacity for one Northern per hour to rattle across the whole ECML without too much difficulty? But if the wider benefits of more long distance services are felt to be more important I don't think it's a massive drama if it's cut.

The annoying thing is that I don't think it's possible to double the service on the Bishop Branch itself without needing an extra unit and crew (hardly insurmountable but it means more £££) as the journey time is just slightly too long for you to be able to do out and back in an hour. I think there's sufficient infrastructure to still allow such a service to run (though I don't have Quail to hand to check how much single track there is to worry about!). So perhaps as a sop for losing the through service it might be possible fund an increase to 2tph on the branch? Perhaps some cross-subsidy from the extra predicted revenue more calls at Darlington by long distance services unlocks (how dreadfully unfashionable )?

As the for important bit, Darlington to Saltburn, I think the goal should three trains per hour and if possible slot in the Darlington to Hartlepool service though I'm not sure there is sufficient capacity in which case I would be arguing for Darlington - Middlesbrough/Saltburn ahead of Darlington - Hartlepool (though I would say that wouldn't I?). Though the level crossings in Redcar will start to become a serious problem I suspect as, in this plan, they'd be coming down six times per hour for Northern services, twice per hour for Transpennine Express and roughly once or twice per hour for freight services. They would definitely begin to spend more time closed than open (a point which I think we might have crossed already actually...).

 

[teessider]

Article from the Gazette yesterday highlighting infrastructure projects in the pipeline.

It mentions Middlesbrough Station platform 3 and undercroft redevelopment being completed by next December. The cover photo for the article still shows the "stunning glass frontage" for the northern entrance... I can't see that materialising.

Some in the comments have also noted the article fails to mention Roseberry Parkway station/connection to Guisborough so it seems that has been kicked into the long grass!

 

[IanXC]

As the for important bit, Darlington to Saltburn, I think the goal should three trains per hour and if possible slot in the Darlington to Hartlepool service though I'm not sure there is sufficient capacity in which case I would be arguing for Darlington - Middlesbrough/Saltburn ahead of Darlington - Hartlepool (though I would say that wouldn't I?). Though the level crossings in Redcar will start to become a serious problem I suspect as, in this plan, they'd be coming down six times per hour for Northern services, twice per hour for Transpennine Express and roughly once or twice per hour for freight services. They would definitely begin to spend more time closed than open (a point which I think we might have crossed already actually...).

If such a timetable could be constructed it would be rather neat to have 2tph Darlington to Saltburn, 1tph Transpennine to Saltburn (calling additionally at Eaglescliffe) and 1tph Darlington to Hartlepool making a good connection with the TPE service at Eaglescliffe.

 

[ainsworth74]

If such a timetable could be constructed it would be rather neat to have 2tph Darlington to Saltburn, 1tph Transpennine to Saltburn (calling additionally at Eaglescliffe) and 1tph Darlington to Hartlepool making a good connection with the TPE service at Eaglescliffe.

That is neat but foils my scheme of having three trains per hour at my local station

 

[Meerkat]

If an extra Darlington to Middlesbrough service is put in shouldn't it go to Nunthorpe to serve the hospital on the way?
From looking at a map I have always thought they should close Eaglescliffe and open a new Tees Parkway nearer the A66 junction

 

[HST43257]

This is probably incredibly over the top, but something like

4tph Darlington to Saltburn all stations
2tph Hartlepool to Guisborough* all stations
1tph Carlisle to Saltburn limited stop via Hartlepool
1tph Manchester to Saltburn limited stop
1tp2h London to Middlesbrough limited stop
1tp2h Middlesbrough to Whitby all stations

* - I’d want to reopen the line to Guisborough probably, if not then just run this service to the proposed Nunthorpe Parkway

 

[Meerkat]

I think I need to visit Saltburn, it sounds incredibly important judging by these suggested train services!

 

[HST43257]

I think I need to visit Saltburn, it sounds incredibly important judging by these suggested train services!

I personally enjoy Saltburn on my visits, and I experience quite busy trains!

 

[D6130]

I personally enjoy Saltburn on my visits, and I experience quite busy trains!

Yes, it's a 'must visit' for cliff funicular and miniature railway tickers....and it has a nice beach and one or two nice pubs as well.

 

[RT4038]

If such a timetable could be constructed it would be rather neat to have 2tph Darlington to Saltburn, 1tph Transpennine to Saltburn (calling additionally at Eaglescliffe) and 1tph Darlington to Hartlepool making a good connection with the TPE service at Eaglescliffe.

Isn't 2ph Darlington-Saltburn and 1ph Darlington-Hartlepool, with a Darlington-Bishop Auckland shuttle of 1ph (every 40 min at peaks) what the service was prior to Darlington DMU depot shutting in the early 80s?

 

[TBY-Paul]

"open a new Tees Parkway nearer the A66 junction"

This I agree with, and, If the junction at Ferryhill could be grade separated, in addition to the proposed Northallerton remodel it would give the option to send some ECML services via this route. It would better serve the majority of the Tees Valley area than Darlington currently does. The ECML & Darlington are a throwback to a time when Darlington & Stockton were the 2 main centre's of population, Middlesbrough was a small village and Stockton was the lowest crossing point of the river Tees (until Transporter Bridge 1911, Newport Bridge 1934 & A19 Tees flyover 1975/6).

The latest population figure's I could find for the Tees Valley, estimated that the Tees Valley District's are made up of the following:-

ONS Estimates - Total Population Mid 2017
DARLINGTON 106300
HARTLEPOOL 93000
MIDDLESBROUGH 140600
REDCAR & CLEVELAND 136000
STOCKTON 196500
Total 672400

Middlesbrough & Stockton district's account for >50% of the population of the Tees Valley

I've always thought a Station near the A66, would have made a great location for a "HS2 Tees Valley Parkway Station", if HS2 Stage3 (Swillington-Newcastle) had progressed, as it's more central to the population's of the Tees Valley and would have been beside a railway line that could have onward links north to Durham( & ECML), Hartlepool( & Durham Coast). West to Darlington (+ Bishop Auckland & ECML) East to Middlesbrough (+ Saltburn & Whitby and South to Northallerton (& ECML to York).

PS...…..I would leave Eaglescliffe open for Local services.

 

[Meerkat]

PS...…..I would leave Eaglescliffe open for Local services.

Allens West is very close for local traffic, but it is so hard to close stations now and closing it would be difficult PR for getting the new station built that we would end up with yet another little used, poorly served, waste of money.

 

[ainsworth74]

Isn't 2ph Darlington-Saltburn and 1ph Darlington-Hartlepool, with a Darlington-Bishop Auckland shuttle of 1ph (every 40 min at peaks) what the service was prior to Darlington DMU depot shutting in the early 80s?

My 75/76 GBTT indicates that there was indeed 2tph Darlington - Saltburn (first train to Saltburn at 0430!), 1tph Darlington - Bishop Auckland running roughly 1tph with some peak extras (no Sunday service) and roughly 1tph Darlington - Hartlepool (definitely the odd gap in the hourly pattern). Good memory!

Fast forwarding to by 1989 GBTT that service pattern has become 1tph Darlington - Saltburn, 1tph Bishop Auckland - Saltburn (so still 2tph Darlington Saltburn) and roughly 1tp2h Darlington - Hartlepool. So that service is starting to get rundown and I think it was chopped almost entirely just a couple of years later.

As I'm on a roll might as well keep going, rewinding now to 1963/64 my NE Region timetable indicates that there was 2tph Darlington - Saltburn, roughly 1tph Darlington - Crook (via Bishop Auckland, Etherley and Beechburn) but it's hard to pick out if there's anything Darlington - Hartlepool (or West Hartlepool as it was at this time). It appears that there might be a handful of trains but most journeys include a note to direct changing at Thornaby with a few at Eaglescliffe. But it's hard to work out as they've smashed a lot of stuff onto one table! There's also, for those interested, seven trains per day Darlington - Barnard Castle with five continuing to Middleton-in-Teesdale.

Turning, finally, to my March 1956 Bradshaw we have a service pattern that's all over the place to be quite honest There's roughly 2tph service Darlington - Saltburn throughout the day but there are odd gaps here and there. These gaps are part filled such as an 0828 M-F Only which runs Darlington - Middlesbrough but which on Saturdays Only is extended to Saltburn or a through train from Newcastle down via the Coast which terminates at Redcar Central. But it's all a bit of a mess compared to previous timetables. The Darlington - Bishop Auckland service is roughly 1tph (though there's big gaps such as no train from Darlington between 0825 and 1000) with most trains continuing to Crook and a handful continuing beyond Crook to Tow Law (which is just months from closure). We also have eight services per day Darlington - Barnard Castle with three continuing onto Penrith via Kirkby Stephen, one terminating at Kirby Stephen after midnight and three continuing to Middleton-in-Teesdale (which also has a few shuttles between it and Barnard Castle). It's even harder to decipher than previous but I cannot see any indication that there was a Darlington - Hartlepool service at this time. Lots of directions to change trains at Thornaby.

Which goes back to something I said earlier about this timetable in this area being very unchanged. It's been 2tph Darlington - Saltburn going back until at least the mid-50s! And there's a reason for that. I would mess with that as your base formula at your peril. Build things around it of course but as a base I'd suggest that maintaining that base frequency along the main Tees Valley Line is critical.

 

[D6130]

I fear the only way to make a regular service at Teesside Airport viable would be building a new town immediately to the north. However given few people want to live so close to an airport, the more sensible option would seem to be just close the station and run a shuttle bus from Dinsdale station (or even Darlington). Electric vehicles with Fast Charge are probably not far off the required range now.

Ironically - given present day environmental and climate concerns - when Teesside Airport station first opened in 1971, a passenger shuttle between the station and the airport terminal was provided by a converted battery-electric milk float with outward-facing longitudinal bench seating and a small luggage space.

 

[HST43257]

On the Darlington to Saltburn section, I'd be interested to know if residents who drive on that corridor feel that 2tph is not frequent enough or something else.

First thing is, the line needs 4 car EMUs. Would this increase in capacity mean no need for an increase in service?

Also, how much demand really is there from Darlington to Hartlepool that would realistically change to train?