• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Scotswood Tyne former rail bridge

Status
Not open for further replies.

tavistock

Member
Joined
19 Nov 2014
Messages
75
Location
Newcastle upon Tyne
Does anyone know why the former rail bridge over the river Tyne at Scotswood in the west end of Newcastle remains locked up and inaccessible? It would make a great addition to the cycle routes in the area if nothing else. Who owns it, and have Sustrans a role here?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

heedfan

Member
Joined
4 Oct 2017
Messages
277
Given that it has been closed to traffic since 1982, I imagine it would be very expensive to bring back up to the standard required for even pedestrian and cycle traffic. I suspect it is owned by either Newcastle or Gateshead council, or perhaps both. Not really viable in the current climate, especially when you have Scotswood bridge itself just down the road and Newburn bridge not that much further up the river. A shame really as I agree that it would make a nice addition to the available river crossings.

Edit: https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3510601 - these photos from 2013 suggest that the bridge doesn't even have a deck.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,263
Given that it has been closed to traffic since 1982, I imagine it would be very expensive to bring back up to the standard required for even pedestrian and cycle traffic. I suspect it is owned by either Newcastle or Gateshead council, or perhaps both. Not really viable in the current climate, especially when you have Scotswood bridge itself just down the road and Newburn bridge not that much further up the river. A shame really as I agree that it would make a nice addition to the available river crossings.

Edit: https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3510601 - these photos from 2013 suggest that the bridge doesn't even have a deck.
Satellite views on Google also show there’s no deck.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
Given that it has been closed to traffic since 1982, I imagine it would be very expensive to bring back up to the standard required for even pedestrian and cycle traffic
That's not a good thought if it's carrying water and gas mains...
 

heedfan

Member
Joined
4 Oct 2017
Messages
277
That's not a good thought if it's carrying water and gas mains...

I would expect there is a lot less in the way of red tape and health and safety legislation if one were to compare a pedestrian bridge to a pipeline bridge. Could be wrong of course!
 

thenorthern

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2013
Messages
4,102
I am told when the bridge closed in 1982 it was going to cost a lot to repair hence the closure. Also being 1980s Tyneside the industry was closing and the British Rail services were very underused. It was therefore decided to divert services over the old route via Dunston as at the time British Rail was always trying to save money. Although the bridge carries gas and water I doubt it would be structurally safe to carry people let alone trains/cars today.

In hindsight it was a good idea to close the bridge and divert the line as 4 years later the MetroCentre opened and a year after that Gateshead MetroCenter station (Now just MetroCenter) opened which has been a very successful station.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
I would expect there is a lot less in the way of red tape and health and safety legislation if one were to compare a pedestrian bridge to a pipeline bridge. Could be wrong of course!
There is, but I was more thinking that the loads imparted by pedestrians and cyclists are going to be significantly less than two pipelines (static vs dynamic considerations, naturally). So if the bridge is in such perilous condition that it can't carry a light-weight pedestrian deck then maybe it's not the best structure for carrying critical infrastructure.
 

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,208
It would have belonged to the BR residuary board, but I would have thought that they would have offloaded it to the utilities whose pipes it carries. Perhaps if you think that it would be a useful footpath/cycleway you should investigate with them.
 

xotGD

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2017
Messages
6,063
I am told when the bridge closed in 1982 it was going to cost a lot to repair hence the closure. Also being 1980s Tyneside the industry was closing and the British Rail services were very underused. It was therefore decided to divert services over the old route via Dunston as at the time British Rail was always trying to save money. Although the bridge carries gas and water I doubt it would be structurally safe to carry people let alone trains/cars today.

In hindsight it was a good idea to close the bridge and divert the line as 4 years later the MetroCentre opened and a year after that Gateshead MetroCenter station (Now just MetroCenter) opened which has been a very successful station.
Plus of course it allowed the reopening of Dunston station. Not the best used, but it used to be handy for me.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,018
It would have belonged to the BR residuary board, but I would have thought that they would have offloaded it to the utilities whose pipes it carries. Perhaps if you think that it would be a useful footpath/cycleway you should investigate with them.
BR Residuary was itself wound up quite some time ago, and the old unwanted substantial BR structures (Shepton Mallet viaduct is another) were unloaded onto ... the Highways Agency. No, I am not making this up. If there is a substantial potential cost in maintaining the bridge I would expect, as elsewhere, the utilities would be more happy to pay an annual wayleave charge rather than be saddled with the full responsibility.

Surprising the deck has been removed if the utility lines are still on it. How do they maintain them?
 

thenorthern

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2013
Messages
4,102
Plus of course it allowed the reopening of Dunston station. Not the best used, but it used to be handy for me.

When the current Dunston station opened in 1984 it was relatively well used as at the time it was the only British Rail station in West Gateshead (unless you count Blaydon). The opening of MetroCenter station took most of the trade away from Dunston however and gradually the service levels were reduced.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,263
Found some decent photos here on “skyscraper city”, split over two successive posts:

The only significant sized pipes visible seem to be carried on straps on the outboard of the bridge side plates, so I suspect the state of the rail deck isn’t of much relevance to the physical safety of the mains...
 

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,208
I hope that the HA is charging enough for the wayleave to maintain the bridge. Otherwise I would threaten to demolish it.
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,672
Location
Redcar
I hope that the HA is charging enough for the wayleave to maintain the bridge. Otherwise I would threaten to demolish it.

A strange point of view. What on earth has that got to do with you and why is it bothering you?
 

FQTV

Member
Joined
27 Apr 2012
Messages
1,067
I am told when the bridge closed in 1982 it was going to cost a lot to repair hence the closure. Also being 1980s Tyneside the industry was closing and the British Rail services were very underused. It was therefore decided to divert services over the old route via Dunston as at the time British Rail was always trying to save money. Although the bridge carries gas and water I doubt it would be structurally safe to carry people let alone trains/cars today.

In hindsight it was a good idea to close the bridge and divert the line as 4 years later the MetroCentre opened and a year after that Gateshead MetroCenter station (Now just MetroCenter) opened which has been a very successful station.

Of course the downside to this is the increased congestion at King Edward Junction, and the associated conflicts with the East Coast Main Line. There’s also the issue that the West End of Newcastle lost a rail corridor that could perhaps have been developed more recently.

It seems to me to be something of a shame that (in a continuation of what could be seen as past mistakes) the current short stay car park which occupies the old bay platforms to the West of the main Newcastle Central Station range is to be redeveloped once more, this time for commercial use and improved access to the Stephenson Quarter (which would always be better provided-for by an extension of the station footbridge and a completely new South side entrance and exit).

If they ever were needed again for Railway operations, though, it’d be that much more tricky and expensive to bring them back into use, and the revenues generated in the meantime presumably won’t, of course, have gone into any pot that could then be used for infrastructure works.

As an indication of how things are in the West End, this is a Google Streetview image of William Armstrong Drive:

7F8B9BD8-366E-43F3-9DC7-D63021871B1A.jpeg

The old alignment to the Scotswood Bridge runs behind the buildings on the right. All the cars in the picture are having to park on the road because the car parks for the buildings are full - and knowing Google SV, this picture will have been taken before 8am. During the day (in normal times), it’s usually bumper to bumper, end to end.

A Scotswood crossing could still be relevant, then, but would ideally be at less of an oblique angle so that there might be a triangular junction on the Gateshead side, permitting services to head West to Hexham, or return East via MetroCentre to create a South bank loop.

If (and it’s a big if, as I think the idea is practically questionable) a line was also reinstated to Consett, then an appropriately aligned Scotswood crossing and reinstated bays at Newcastle Central could again provide additional capacity and reduce conflicts, I’d have thought.
 

Anvil1984

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2010
Messages
1,424
To be honest I’m pretty sure the branch from the station towards Scotswood Bridge may be disconnected in the next couple of years. I’m sure the planned Newcastle station extension (if it goes ahead) extends the bay platforms across it. Dare I say it the extended bays are much more needed (ducks and covers)
 

xotGD

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2017
Messages
6,063
Of course the downside to this is the increased congestion at King Edward Junction, and the associated conflicts with the East Coast Main Line.
This was alleviated when the new platforms 5-8 were built, so that services no longer had to use the bays and cross the fast lines. Same at the other end of the station with trains heading over the High Level.
 

Anvil1984

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2010
Messages
1,424
This was alleviated when the new platforms 5-8 were built, so that services no longer had to use the bays and cross the fast lines. Same at the other end of the station with trains heading over the High Level.

The problem is now we have conflicts where the CrossCountrys and TPE's are terminating in 5 instead of the bays as per previous years (due to being too big) and Northern are having to use the bays more (and get delayed as a result). The layout needs updating again but that's for another thread I guess
 

Scott M

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2014
Messages
395
I am told when the bridge closed in 1982 it was going to cost a lot to repair hence the closure. Also being 1980s Tyneside the industry was closing and the British Rail services were very underused. It was therefore decided to divert services over the old route via Dunston as at the time British Rail was always trying to save money. Although the bridge carries gas and water I doubt it would be structurally safe to carry people let alone trains/cars today.

In hindsight it was a good idea to close the bridge and divert the line as 4 years later the MetroCentre opened and a year after that Gateshead MetroCenter station (Now just MetroCenter) opened which has been a very successful station.

I noticed it was announced as Gateshead MetroCentre by the automated announcer at Newcastle Central yesterday, wonder if they are planning on changing its name back to Gateshead MetroCentre.
 

thenorthern

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2013
Messages
4,102
I noticed it was announced as Gateshead MetroCentre by the automated announcer at Newcastle Central yesterday, wonder if they are planning on changing its name back to Gateshead MetroCentre.

I doubt it, there are several oddities with stations and annoucements where a name other than the official station name is used. Some examples include "Carlisle Citadel" "Tamworth Low Level" and "Deansgate G-MEX".
 

Scott M

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2014
Messages
395
I doubt it, there are several oddities with stations and annoucements where a name other than the official station name is used. Some examples include "Carlisle Citadel" "Tamworth Low Level" and "Deansgate G-MEX".
Yeah true. Realistically there is only one MetroCentre so no real need to prefix it with Gateshead.
 

thenorthern

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2013
Messages
4,102
Of course the downside to this is the increased congestion at King Edward Junction, and the associated conflicts with the East Coast Main Line. There’s also the issue that the West End of Newcastle lost a rail corridor that could perhaps have been developed more recently.

It seems to me to be something of a shame that (in a continuation of what could be seen as past mistakes) the current short stay car park which occupies the old bay platforms to the West of the main Newcastle Central Station range is to be redeveloped once more, this time for commercial use and improved access to the Stephenson Quarter (which would always be better provided-for by an extension of the station footbridge and a completely new South side entrance and exit).

If they ever were needed again for Railway operations, though, it’d be that much more tricky and expensive to bring them back into use, and the revenues generated in the meantime presumably won’t, of course, have gone into any pot that could then be used for infrastructure works.

As an indication of how things are in the West End, this is a Google Streetview image of William Armstrong Drive:

View attachment 84996

The old alignment to the Scotswood Bridge runs behind the buildings on the right. All the cars in the picture are having to park on the road because the car parks for the buildings are full - and knowing Google SV, this picture will have been taken before 8am. During the day (in normal times), it’s usually bumper to bumper, end to end.

A Scotswood crossing could still be relevant, then, but would ideally be at less of an oblique angle so that there might be a triangular junction on the Gateshead side, permitting services to head West to Hexham, or return East via MetroCentre to create a South bank loop.

If (and it’s a big if, as I think the idea is practically questionable) a line was also reinstated to Consett, then an appropriately aligned Scotswood crossing and reinstated bays at Newcastle Central could again provide additional capacity and reduce conflicts, I’d have thought.

With King Edward Bridge congestion it wouldn't have been a major issue at the time. You have to remember this was 1980s Tyneside the Metro had just opened which took a lot of traffic away from the King Edward VII Bridge and the High Level Bridge so there was a lot of extra capacity.

Also at the time the Tyne Valley Line I think was only served hourly, the East Coast Main Line wasn't electrified and was not as frequent as it is now finally the CrossCountry services were very infrequent at the time. In short capacity at the time wasn't a major problem.

I agree though the line would have uses if it was reopened today, the best option in my opinion would be if it was reopened a line on the Tyne and Wear Metro to serve the MetroCentre.

Yeah true. Realistically there is only one MetroCentre so no real need to prefix it with Gateshead.

Also the MetroCentre not really near the center what most people would associate as "Gateshead". I am aware that the MetroCentre is in the Metropolitan Borough of Gateshead.
 
Last edited:

Scott M

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2014
Messages
395
Also the MetroCentre not really near the center what most people would associate as "Gateshead". I am aware that the MetroCentre is in the Metropolitan Borough of Gateshead.
Yeah it’s kinda in the middle of nowhere really.
 

xotGD

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2017
Messages
6,063
Yeah true. Realistically there is only one MetroCentre so no real need to prefix it with Gateshead.
To add to the fun, 'Gateshead Metro' is in the town centre. And a bus runs between the two.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top