Newcastle-York rail investment options: what are your thoughts?

[Jorge Da Silva]

Network Rail has identified a programme of investments to accommodate more services between Yorkshire and Newcastle, including Northern Powerhouse Rail and HS2 services.

Network Rail’s investigations have examined the railway between Newcastle and Church Fenton between Leeds and York, where the HS2 line is proposed to join the existing rail network.

The two-track section of railway between Northallerton in North Yorkshire and Newcastle is already a bottleneck.

Tobyn Hughes, managing director for Transport North East presented a summary of the findings in a report for the North East Joint Transport Committee.

Listed from south to north they are:

• platform lengthening at Church Fenton
• new platforms and an improved track layout at York
• additional track between York and Skelton Junction, where the Harrogate line branches off
• options to move passenger calls from the main line platforms at Northallerton
• new through and bay platforms at Darlington
• rerouting freight off the East Coast Main Line between Northallerton and Ferryhill by running trains via Eaglescliffe and the Stillington branch that rejoins the main line at Ferryhill
• reinstating the Leamside line from Ferryhill northwards either in part of full; the line could rejoin the ECML north of Durham or join the Sunderland to Newcastle line east of Heworth
• unspecified options to increase capacity on the Durham Coast line (Hartlepool-Sunderland-Newcastle) for additional passenger services
• new track near Bensham Curve in Gateshead (separating freight from passenger services)
• lengthening bay platforms at Newcastle Central to accommodate HS2 and NPR trains (Newcastle City Council is currently leading on station redevelopment plans)

Hughes said the next stage of the exercise would see local authorities, Transport for the North and Network Rail develop a “phased approach to progressing the business cases for the interventions identified”.

https://www.transportxtra.com/publi...4996/newcastle-york-rail-investment-proposals

Newcastle to York upgrade suggestions. Any thoughts?

 

[Halish Railway]

Was there a plan some years back to build a diversion around Chester-le-street?

I've also always thought that York to Ferryhill/Durham should be 4-track and the linespeed on fast lines increased where possible with in-cab signalling - There are plenty of stretches where 155 mph should be possible and help to extend NPR. I also don't understand why Church Fenton's platforms need lengthening.

Also, if we're going to talk about NPR, HS2 and Church Fenton, I feel that they may as well build a chord to link the existing Leeds to York/Hull line to HS2 as seen below:

By building this chord, it would be a relatively inexpensive way of extending NPR 'proper' to York (or even Newcastle), as well as taking express trains off of the old route (which is close to capacity), enabling increased frequencies of stopping services and taking away some pathing issues.

Source - http://www.railmaponline.com/UKIEMap.php

 

[bluenoxid]

The land to the west of that chord has been or is being built on. The existing railway line is expected to have the new East Leeds Parkway built on it

 

[sjm77]

Surely reinstatement of the Leamside Line is key. It would remove freight from the 2 track section North of Northallerton which could run via Yarm, Stillington and Leamside. RailTrack talked about this in 2000!

 

[class26]

I also thought the speed between York and Newcastle was being raised as part of the upgrade in readiness for HS2 ?

 

[TheBigD]

Surely reinstatement of the Leamside Line is key. It would remove freight from the 2 track section North of Northallerton which could run via Yarm, Stillington and Leamside. RailTrack talked about this in 2000!

Is there that much freight on the northern part of the ECML these days? I would have thought (but could be wrong) that there is very little since the decline of coal.

 

[greyman42]

Why would the platforms at Church Fenton require lengthening?

 

[InOban]

I'd there that much freight on the northern part of the ECML these days? I would have thought (but could be wrong) that there is very little since the decline of coal.

There are plans to send container trains from Felixstowe etc to Scotland via the ecml rather than the wcml. Hence the Werrington diveunder at Peterborough.

 

[Class 170101]

I'd there that much freight on the northern part of the ECML these days? I would have thought (but could be wrong) that there is very little since the decline of coal.

I would be surprised if there is capacity north Newcastle for these given the following
3tph East Coast
1tph TPE
1tph XC
4 or 5 trains on a daily basis by First Group Open Access Operator,
over the whole stretch

In addition over parts of it
1tph Edinburgh to Dunbar (at most)
2tph North Berwick to Edinburgh
1tph Chathill (or points south) to Newcastle.

Could you really path freight through this lot, not to mention the power supply issues on this section?

There are plans to send container trains from Felixstowe etc to Scotland via the ecml rather than the wcml. Hence the Werrington diveunder at Peterborough.

I thought this was mainly for improved access to Yorkshire terminals.

 

[InOban]

Them as well.

 

[Halifaxlad]

I was looking at this area a while ago after reading about the possibility of reopening the line from Harrogate to Northallerton via Ripon.

Between Northallerton and Newcastle does have several disused trackbeds that are unbuilt upon, however several do appear to have been made into cycle tracks.

You could potentially route some services via Sunderland. Although this isn't in anyway my area, so to make it easier Ive drawn a map.

The open lines are in Red, the disused in Blue and the ECML in brown. Obviously they're are more disused lines but I thought I should only highlight the relevant ones that could potentially relieve capacity on the EC.

 

[E100]

I'd straighten the alignment from just north of Darlington to just south of Durham to aid increasing line speed to much higher speeds e.g 155mph or even 180mph if 4 track. Adding a loop in each direction if 2 track.

Reopen Leamside too.

 

[LittleAH]

I remember a while ago seeing suggestions about a new fast line from Northallerton via Teesside to Newcastle. This would definitely be a better idea than small enhancements to the current line as it would allow for better connectivity and more local services between Darlington and Newcastle

 

[edwin_m]

I was looking at this area a while ago after reading about the possibility of reopening the line from Harrogate to Northallerton via Ripon.

Between Northallerton and Newcastle does have several disused trackbeds that are unbuilt upon, however several do appear to have been made into cycle tracks.

You could potentially route some services via Sunderland. Although this isn't in anyway my area, so to make it easier Ive drawn a map.

The open lines are in Red, the disused in Blue and the ECML in brown. Obviously they're are more disused lines but I thought I should only highlight the relevant ones that could potentially relieve capacity on the EC.

View attachment 76264

There's also the Stillington line from Stockton to Ferryhill, which is still open and proposed to be used more in the latest NR enhancements. This used to lead directly (via a 4-track section at Ferryhill, so not touching the ECML itself) into the Leamside Line which you do show and was mothballed in the 1980s.

 

[Meerkat]

Are there enough fast trains that don’t stop between Darlington and Newcastle to justify a new fast line?
Send the freight through Stockton and either an improved coast line, or rebuild the Leamside line as a freight route to Nissan, Tyne Dock, and a new intermodal park in that area

 

[DH1Commuter]

Leamside's time must be coming - potential new double-track from between north of Darlington and either/both north of Durham/into Gateshead. This has scope to take both freight and passengers, including potentially new flows of both (Nissan freight and passengers from a Ferryhill/Sedgefield parkway station, East Gateshead and East Durham - the latter's P+R site was built by the Leamside for this purpose), as well as possibly relief for the ECML.

For those in the industry, if two new tracks from Newcastle fed into Ferryhill, would there be adequate capacity from Ferryhill to Darlington to make this work, rather than just creating a new bottleneck?

 

[edwin_m]

For those in the industry, if two new tracks from Newcastle fed into Ferryhill, would there be adequate capacity from Ferryhill to Darlington to make this work, rather than just creating a new bottleneck?

Ferryhill to Northallerton is mostly double track and a lot of it is 100mph+, so probably more difficult to accommodate a freight train than on the slower section through Durham. You'd probably use the Stillington line instead as I suggested a few posts back, then via Eaglescliffe. That would give a pair of tracks (excepting a couple of short single sections/junctions) that don't touch the ECML Fasts all the way from Skelton Bridge (north of York) to Newcastle.

 

[class26]

Are there enough fast trains that don’t stop between Darlington and Newcastle to justify a new fast line?
Send the freight through Stockton and either an improved coast line, or rebuild the Leamside line as a freight route to Nissan, Tyne Dock, and a new intermodal park in that area

You could turn your question on its head and ask, IF the line between Darlington and Newcastle was faster maybe more trains would do this non stop? As they must reduce speeds to 75 for Durham perhaps they calculate they might as well stop whereas if it was 125 mph they would not ?

 

[Meerkat]

You could turn your question on its head and ask, IF the line between Darlington and Newcastle was faster maybe more trains would do this non stop? As they must reduce speeds to 75 for Durham perhaps they calculate they might as well stop whereas if it was 125 mph they would not ?

That would probably mean Durham Council were very opposed.....

 

[class26]

That would probably mean Durham Council were very opposed.....

No doubt but surely it is for the TOC to make a commercial decision and not for Durham cc (or any other local authority)? If the TOC wish to run some fast, limited stop trains between Scotland and London and 125 mph (if and when possible on this stretch) together with not stopping at Durham would save several minutes and perhaps get below the magic four hours ? BR always said 1 minute saved was worth 1 % increase in revenue so this could be more than worth it.

 

[edwin_m]

No doubt but surely it is for the TOC to make a commercial decision and not for Durham cc (or any other local authority)? If the TOC wish to run some fast, limited stop trains between Scotland and London and 125 mph (if and when possible on this stretch) together with not stopping at Durham would save several minutes and perhaps get below the magic four hours ? BR always said 1 minute saved was worth 1 % increase in revenue so this could be more than worth it.

That would be true for an open access TOC but for a franchise the minimum number of stops would be written into the specification with very little scope to change it. Whatever replaces franchising will probably reduce that freedom even further.

 

[class26]

That would be true for an open access TOC but for a franchise the minimum number of stops would be written into the specification with very little scope to change it. Whatever replaces franchising will probably reduce that freedom even further.

Agreed, what I was meaning (and probably not being clear) was that when there is a change of franchise or when ever there is a point where change can be made it is for the TOC with the DFT to make the choice, not the local county council. No doubt every c.c. all over the land wants improved rail services but they come at a cost which isn`t borne by the C.C.

 

[Mollman]

There are plans to send container trains from Felixstowe etc to Scotland via the ecml rather than the wcml. Hence the Werrington diveunder at Peterborough.

So further reducing the number of trains that can be electric hauled!

 

[greyman42]

No doubt but surely it is for the TOC to make a commercial decision and not for Durham cc (or any other local authority)? If the TOC wish to run some fast, limited stop trains between Scotland and London and 125 mph (if and when possible on this stretch) together with not stopping at Durham would save several minutes and perhaps get below the magic four hours ? BR always said 1 minute saved was worth 1 % increase in revenue so this could be more than worth it.

I seem to remember that Durham had more passengers than Darlington at the last count but I could be wrong?

 

[darloscott]

I seem to remember that Durham had more passengers than Darlington at the last count but I could be wrong?

It does indeed (not by much!) - however I think there is a good chance that a larger number are 'local' passengers (to Newcastle mainly) compared to Darlington which has a higher percentage of longer distance passengers. They're both around the 2.8m a year mark, Durham has around 26k more total passengers, though Darlington's figures are made up of some 405k transfer passengers from the local services that link from Teesside, and increasingly Bishop line too. This is more transfer passengers than Newcastle interestingly, though obviously a huge percentage of transfers there are from Metro which won't be counted.

 

[MoleStation]

Darlington is really for the forces to Catterick and back, at least up til recently. Historically, yes! Durham, because of the university-ness etc, absolutely requires those London trains. it's always been the same

 

[markymark2000]

Why does Darlington and York need more platforms.

Yorks platform occupancy level is quite low as it is, more platforms is just a waste of money.

Darlington I can partly see the appeal but I think mostly a track layout change would suffice without more platforms.

 

[30907]

Why does Darlington and York need more platforms.

Yorks platform occupancy level is quite low as it is, more platforms is just a waste of money.

Darlington I can partly see the appeal but I think mostly a track layout change would suffice without more platforms.

Without being privy to the details, a long-standing wish for York was to route the Harrogate service round via the Goods lines and into a new platform beyond 11/12. Not sure there is room to squeeze additional trackage past the museum on the main passenger lines, but either way, a new Harrogate bay might make sense.
Darlington - I can't see what layout alteration you could make to eliminate the conflicting movements without an additional platform(s) on the Up side, which I think is the plan.

 

[Iskra]

Without being privy to the details, a long-standing wish for York was to route the Harrogate service round via the Goods lines and into a new platform beyond 11/12. Not sure there is room to squeeze additional trackage past the museum on the main passenger lines, but either way, a new Harrogate bay mightvmake sense.
Darlington - I can't see what layout alteration you could make to eliminate the conflicting movements without an additional platform(s) on the Up side, which I think is the plan.

Both good ideas!

 

[Ploughman]

There is also the long rumoured flyover for the Up Slow at Skelton bridge over the Up and Down mains.