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

[yorkie]

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. ...

That was a long time ago; surely the idea is dead since the creation of York ROC?

 

[tbtc]

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.

My standard response to the Leamside argument is "sounds reasonable in principle, but what would the difference be between it and the current ECML"?

e.g. would it be a fast line to receive the slow bit of route through Durham (and permit more services to stop at Chester le Street, possibly new stations at Birtley or near Newton Aycliffe)? Or would the Leamside be a slow line, to take freight off the line through Durham (maybe close Chester le Street and open a station on the fringes of Washington instead - stick a P&R station near the A690 too)?

Both projects would have their merits (although neither serves the sprawling town of Washington particularly well), but it can't be both - it needs to be one or the other. And will there be sufficient freight on the ECML to warrant building a line to get it out of the way from passenger services? Will the Nissan plan be producing the same number of vehicles long term, given Brexit?

(it's not a bad idea - there's a problem with the number of long distance high speed services cramming through Durham and meaning there's no scope for improved Local Trains For Local People in County Durham, but if you're going to have a second line from Darlington to Newcastle then it needs to be one thing or another, there's little point in doing so to create two similar lines)

 

[Meerkat]

And will there be sufficient freight on the ECML to warrant building a line to get it out of the way from passenger services? Will the Nissan plan be producing the same number of vehicles long term, given Brexit?

Tyne Dock generates a fair bit of traffic doesn’t it? And if the Nissan plant did decline/close then a Leamside freight line would be even more essential to attract replacement investment/jobs. Building the line would also be a subtle subsidy to Nissan to encourage them to stay

 

[markydh]

My standard response to the Leamside argument is "sounds reasonable in principle, but what would the difference be between it and the current ECML"?

e.g. would it be a fast line to receive the slow bit of route through Durham (and permit more services to stop at Chester le Street, possibly new stations at Birtley or near Newton Aycliffe)? Or would the Leamside be a slow line, to take freight off the line through Durham (maybe close Chester le Street and open a station on the fringes of Washington instead - stick a P&R station near the A690 too)?

Both projects would have their merits (although neither serves the sprawling town of Washington particularly well), but it can't be both - it needs to be one or the other. And will there be sufficient freight on the ECML to warrant building a line to get it out of the way from passenger services? Will the Nissan plan be producing the same number of vehicles long term, given Brexit?

(it's not a bad idea - there's a problem with the number of long distance high speed services cramming through Durham and meaning there's no scope for improved Local Trains For Local People in County Durham, but if you're going to have a second line from Darlington to Newcastle then it needs to be one thing or another, there's little point in doing so to create two similar lines)

The Leamside line is still targeted by NEXUS for an extension of the Metro, effectively creating a long loop by connecting Pelaw with South Hylton. If the line is seen as a good option for diverting freight from the ECML, then that would help with this aspiration.

 

[Meerkat]

The Leamside line is still targeted by NEXUS for an extension of the Metro, effectively creating a long loop by connecting Pelaw with South Hylton. If the line is seen as a good option for diverting freight from the ECML, then that would help with this aspiration.

Would regular freight work with frequent 50mph metros?

 

[markydh]

Would regular freight work with frequent 50mph metros?

I don’t see why not. After all, heavy and light rail share the line to Sunderland.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The existence of a clear Leamside line alignment doesn't mean the line has to come back as it was. As tbtc said above, it's not particularly clear what problem another mixed-traffic line would actually solve to justify its own reopening costs.

It's best to consider each of the requirements we have and think about what the best solution for each would be, and then see if and how the Leamside alignment could help resolve them.

Freight is an odd one. What is the need here? Is it just to make it easier to path freight through the region? If so, then the actual route of the freight isn't relevant. Any solution which solves the pathing problem would fix it, even if that means not making any infrastructure changes for freight at all.

Likewise, the fact the Leamside line gets close to the NMUK plant means very little. Does NMUK need rail freight? If the line already existed, would they be interested in building a branch line to the plant?

The idea of a higher-speed (230km/h) bypass of the two-track Durham area seems a highly plausible long-term investment for the region. However, if you were to build this, why would you want to just re-open the Leamside line? Only parts of the former alignment are suitable for high speed running and old railway lines have a tendency to go very close to people's homes. A higher-speed line would really act more like a motorway and you'd want to keep it away from people as much as possible. The cost of converting the old alignment into a higher-speed one meeting new requirements may well be higher than just leaving it be and building a totally new line through open countryside. HS2 is basically going to obliterate any trace of former railway lines when it re-uses the same natural corridors.

You may just be able to re-use the line south of the A690 but I think north of there you'd want to tack over to follow the M1. There's no point having a faster plain line route which then has a slower approach into the city centre.

The cheapest and least controversial way to get parts of the line reopened without any major changes will be as part of the T&W Metro system. Tight curves and proximity to homes isn't a problem for a light rail network. You'd also have the best chances of being able to re-use existing civil engineering works rather than having to rebuild to modern standards.

 

[SoccerHQ]

Darlo is just Boro parkway.

 

[Class 170101]

Freight is an odd one. What is the need here? Is it just to make it easier to path freight through the region? If so, then the actual route of the freight isn't relevant. Any solution which solves the pathing problem would fix it, even if that means not making any infrastructure changes for freight at all.

The idea of a higher-speed (230km/h) bypass of the two-track Durham area seems a highly plausible long-term investment for the region. However, if you were to build this, why would you want to just re-open the Leamside line? Only parts of the former alignment are suitable for high speed running and old railway lines have a tendency to go very close to people's homes. A higher-speed line would really act more like a motorway and you'd want to keep it away from people as much as possible. The cost of converting the old alignment into a higher-speed one meeting new requirements may well be higher than just leaving it be and building a totally new line through open countryside. HS2 is basically going to obliterate any trace of former railway lines when it re-uses the same natural corridors.

You may just be able to re-use the line south of the A690 but I think north of there you'd want to tack over to follow the M1. There's no point having a faster plain line route which then has a slower approach into the city centre.

The cheapest and least controversial way to get parts of the line reopened without any major changes will be as part of the T&W Metro system. Tight curves and proximity to homes isn't a problem for a light rail network. You'd also have the best chances of being able to re-use existing civil engineering works rather than having to rebuild to modern standards.

Leamside would be a slow alternativefreight line to allow faster services not to be held up on the ECML between Darlington and Newcastle in my book.

BTW where you say M1 I assume you mean A1?

 

[InOban]

Surely it's the A1(M)?

 

[30907]

That was a long time ago; surely the idea is dead since the creation of York ROC?

Yes it is dead - I've been around too long . The alternative I mentioned is still viable (the tight spot is by the Siemens depot not the NRM).

 

[tbtc]

Freight is an odd one. What is the need here? Is it just to make it easier to path freight through the region? If so, then the actual route of the freight isn't relevant. Any solution which solves the pathing problem would fix it, even if that means not making any infrastructure changes for freight at all

True - if we are talking about there being so little freight that it could be accommodated amongst a frequent Metro service from Gateshead to Washington then surely that's freight that could be diverted down the Durham Coast (maybe you'd need to spend a couple of quid on improved signalling, given the long sections AIUI, but that'd surely be a lot cheaper than a "new" line from Gateshead to Darlington) - the line south of Sunderland is a double tracked line with only one or two passenger trains per hour (given the gaps in the GC service) - other than effectively a short section of single track at Hartlepool to accommodate using just one platform - there's surely scope for sending more freight that way rather than having to re-open an old line (although I appreciate the Forum habit of suggesting re-opening a long closed route as a knee-jerk reaction to many "problems")

Don't get me wrong, the Leamside line has possibilities and merits - there's an argument for speeding up services on the ECML, there's an argument for a P&R station near the A690, there's an argument for trying to serve Washington with some kind of light/heavy rail, there are other populations along the existing ECML that could benefit from trains stopping there (whether that's improved frequency at Chester le Street or new stations near places like Newton Aycliffe/ Birtley)... it's a lot better than the rural villages that are often brought up as "priorities"... but I'd like to see something a bit more concrete than a simplistic "re-open the Leamside" - I want more detail about *why*.

 

[trivran]

True - if we are talking about there being so little freight that it could be accommodated amongst a frequent Metro service from Gateshead to Washington then surely that's freight that could be diverted down the Durham Coast (maybe you'd need to spend a couple of quid on improved signalling, given the long sections AIUI, but that'd surely be a lot cheaper than a "new" line from Gateshead to Darlington) - the line south of Sunderland is a double tracked line with only one or two passenger trains per hour (given the gaps in the GC service) - other than effectively a short section of single track at Hartlepool to accommodate using just one platform - there's surely scope for sending more freight that way rather than having to re-open an old line (although I appreciate the Forum habit of suggesting re-opening a long closed route as a knee-jerk reaction to many "problems")

Don't get me wrong, the Leamside line has possibilities and merits - there's an argument for speeding up services on the ECML, there's an argument for a P&R station near the A690, there's an argument for trying to serve Washington with some kind of light/heavy rail, there are other populations along the existing ECML that could benefit from trains stopping there (whether that's improved frequency at Chester le Street or new stations near places like Newton Aycliffe/ Birtley)... it's a lot better than the rural villages that are often brought up as "priorities"... but I'd like to see something a bit more concrete than a simplistic "re-open the Leamside" - I want more detail about *why*.

What does this freight do north of Sunderland though? Or is the metro infrequent enough to not be an issue?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Leamside would be a slow alternativefreight line to allow faster services not to be held up on the ECML between Darlington and Newcastle in my book.

BTW where you say M1 I assume you mean A1?

Speeding up express services is something that might be better done by building them a new line that avoids the existing and possible reopened or new stations on the old route. Ideally you have a line which allows a 200km/h-capable train to accelerate out of Darlington and then stay at 200km/h up until it needs to slow down to not make a big mess of the King Edward VII bridge. Slower stopping trains and freight don't mind curves and stations so much, and it's reasonably easy to path the two of them together too. A 100mph electric stopping passenger train averages the same sort of speed as a 60-75mph freight service.

And yes, I do mean the A1(M). I think we'd see a line follow it from just north of Darlington to just north of Chester-le-Street. The existing alignment north of there is already fairly straight and it's wide enough for fast trains to have their own pair of tracks. There's not going to be any real benefit from a massively expensive tunnel under the southern suburbs of Gateshead.

 

[Jonny]

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?

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.

Leamside would be a slow alternativefreight line to allow faster services not to be held up on the ECML between Darlington and Newcastle in my book.

BTW where you say M1 I assume you mean A1?

The issue with the Leamside line is the Victoria viaduct between Washington and Penshaw. As things stood when it closed, it was single track with sharp curves on the approach. Even assuming that it was worthwhile to upgrade/repair it to cope with passing freight trains, they would have to slow down significantly on the approach. From a Google Earth fly-by, there seem to be a few other notable curves as well, as well as a few level crossings including one that is too close for comfort to a certain car manufacturing plant.

 

[swt_passenger]

Another issue with the Leamside Line is that it doesn’t run directly to Tyne Dock. Unless they also reinstated Boldon flat crossing, you’d need to run the loco round the train at Pelaw, and then need a run back down the Sunderland line as far as Boldon North.

Its also the long way round from anywhere in the south if going to Tyne Yard, which is where many freight services are headed for.

If a train has already turned off the ECML at Northallerton, bound for Tyne Dock, surely it might as well run directly via Sunderland? What’s the difference between running Sunderland to Boldon amongst the 6 tph Metros compared to Pelaw to Boldon amongst the same 6 tph Metros?

It seems to me there’s a large amount of “let’s use it because it exists” rather than because it’s needed...

 

[edwin_m]

One useful measure would be to reinstate the "Bensham Curve" which was taken out at re-signaling in 1990ish I think. It allowed trains between Tyne Yard and the Sunderland line (potentially the Leamside line too) to run underneath the ECML on the route used by MetroCentre trains and along the south bank of the Tyne, avoiding the Fast lines and Central Station. This would have value whichever route the trains from the south took. It would also allow freight from the north to access Tyne Yard via the slow line from Heaton without touching the Fasts through Newcastle and Gateshead.

 

[Meerkat]

Another issue with the Leamside Line is that it doesn’t run directly to Tyne Dock. Unless they also reinstated Boldon flat crossing, you’d need to run the loco round the train at Pelaw, and then need a run back down the Sunderland line as far as Boldon North.

A south to east curve would be part of the plan, and would only involve going through one metro station as opposed to 5 on the Sunderland route

Its also the long way round from anywhere in the south if going to Tyne Yard, which is where many freight services are headed for.

Why are the services going to Tyne Yard? They could use the Bensham curve if they must go there.
I would suggest an intermodal park on the opencast workings at the top of the A194(m), with junctions/runrounds linked in to the Nissan plant

 

[swt_passenger]

One useful measure would be to reinstate the "Bensham Curve" which was taken out at re-signaling in 1990ish I think. It allowed trains between Tyne Yard and the Sunderland line (potentially the Leamside line too) to run underneath the ECML on the route used by MetroCentre trains and along the south bank of the Tyne, avoiding the Fast lines and Central Station. This would have value whichever route the trains from the south took. It would also allow freight from the north to access Tyne Yard via the slow line from Heaton without touching the Fasts through Newcastle and Gateshead.

I wonder if that’s probably what the oddly described “new track near Bensham Curve“ included in the list in post #1 really means. I wondered why it doesn’t just read “reinstate Bensham Curve”?

 

[DH1Commuter]

Another issue with the Leamside Line is that it doesn’t run directly to Tyne Dock. Unless they also reinstated Boldon flat crossing, you’d need to run the loco round the train at Pelaw, and then need a run back down the Sunderland line as far as Boldon North.

Its also the long way round from anywhere in the south if going to Tyne Yard, which is where many freight services are headed for.

If a train has already turned off the ECML at Northallerton, bound for Tyne Dock, surely it might as well run directly via Sunderland? What’s the difference between running Sunderland to Boldon amongst the 6 tph Metros compared to Pelaw to Boldon amongst the same 6 tph Metros?

It seems to me there’s a large amount of “let’s use it because it exists” rather than because it’s needed...

I think there is some truth in this - both a strength and weakness of the Leamside is that it could do so many things (additional express capacity, freight, local stoppers, T+W Metro extension) that no one stakeholder group has gone for it (apart from the aborted attempt to re-open it c2000). For my money, it should be re-opened principally as a local service, likely T+W extension, thus also creating freight capacity for Tyne Dock (if extra work done at Boldon, as detailed above +/- Bensham for Tyne Yard). This would have the knock-on effect of freeing up some capacity on the ECML, thus enabling its use better as the inter-city line it mostly is.

Why local service as main objective? Because it passes through well-populated areas of Gateshead and Washington that are not rail-served, Penshaw and Ferryhill are probably sizeable enough to merit stations also, with Penshaw in particular now becoming popular with commuters, and a Durham A690 parkway station would open another new market for commuters who otherwise face either the A1M or driving through Durham city centre to get to the (well-served) station, neither of them fast or fun. Additionally, as mentioned above, it is a curving alignment probably better suited to local services/freight than express, though much could be adapted if needed.

All of that said, Nexus are probably not in a position to take this on at present, so it would require someone else to drive it, hence my belief it will not happen unless centrally/regionally-driven.

 

[Ivan Winters]

Some of the 'solutions' suggested above involve light rail services and freight sharing the same tracks.
I understood that light rail and heavy rail (passenger) services had to be kept one signal block apart, that is one empty signal block length between the two types of rolling stock. That was to prevent a heavy rail train slightly overrunning a 'Stop' signal crushing a light rail train halted in front of it.
That situation gets worse, potentially, with mixed services including freight. Freight trains have longer braking distances than heavy rail (passenger) services and heavier train weights which mean that an impact at very low speed would still crush a light rail service.
Any use of track for proposed 'mixed' services particularly with a substantial number of train per hour would involve complex signalling arrangements with multiple blocks to give enough capacity and still keep light rail users protected from heavy rail operations - both passenger and freight !

 

[tbtc]

If the route is for "slow" services, then what would be using it south of Washington? One freight per hour? Is there much more/less than that, on average? Or would you have a ten minute Newcastle - Gateshead - Washington service on the Metro (i.e. extending off the current Leamside alignment to divert into Washington) plus an additional Newcastle - Gateshead - A690 Metro service?

Diverting some existing passenger services away from Durham? If so, which?

True - if we are talking about there being so little freight that it could be accommodated amongst a frequent Metro service from Gateshead to Washington then surely that's freight that could be diverted down the Durham Coast .

What does this freight do north of Sunderland though? Or is the metro infrequent enough to not be an issue?

I was replying to the suggestion that the Leamside could accommodate freight plus a Metro service as far as Washington - i.e. if the freight is capable of fitting in between the proposed frequency of Metro services on a Washington branch then presumably that'd be the same frequency as freight would have to deal with on the route through Sunderland (plus one Northern service per hour from Sunderland to Newcastle but that's hardly a deal breaker).

Either there's enough space through Sunderland to squeeze any freight using the ECML through Durham or there's not, but if the line through Sunderland is so busy that there's no space for freight then presumably the same problem would occur with the suggestions that freight could fit in between a Gateshead - Washington extension of the Metro

I think there is some truth in this - both a strength and weakness of the Leamside is that it could do so many things (additional express capacity, freight, local stoppers, T+W Metro extension) that no one stakeholder group has gone for it (apart from the aborted attempt to re-open it c2000)

Agreed - many people want the Leamside to re-open but for different/ contradictory reasons - you can't have a fast line to speed up London - Newcastle/ Edinburgh services if it's also a Metro extension - it probably has a lot of support but you can't tick all of the boxes with it, and there really needs to be a hard decision taken over what kind of Leamside people are arguing for before we can get much further.

 

[swt_passenger]

Some of the 'solutions' suggested above involve light rail services and freight sharing the same tracks.
I understood that light rail and heavy rail (passenger) services had to be kept one signal block apart, that is one empty signal block length between the two types of rolling stock. That was to prevent a heavy rail train slightly overrunning a 'Stop' signal crushing a light rail train halted in front of it.
That situation gets worse, potentially, with mixed services including freight. Freight trains have longer braking distances than heavy rail (passenger) services and heavier train weights which mean that an impact at very low speed would still crush a light rail service.
Any use of track for proposed 'mixed' services particularly with a substantial number of train per hour would involve complex signalling arrangements with multiple blocks to give enough capacity and still keep light rail users protected from heavy rail operations - both passenger and freight !

Does the existing double blocking on the NR shared section differentiate between mainline passenger and freight services, or is it exactly the same?
Will the new Metro stock still require double blocking, or has the crash worthiness been specified differently, now that mixed running is normal, and there’ll also be more of it once the South Shields branch is doubled?

 

[edwin_m]

Some of the 'solutions' suggested above involve light rail services and freight sharing the same tracks.
I understood that light rail and heavy rail (passenger) services had to be kept one signal block apart, that is one empty signal block length between the two types of rolling stock. That was to prevent a heavy rail train slightly overrunning a 'Stop' signal crushing a light rail train halted in front of it.
That situation gets worse, potentially, with mixed services including freight. Freight trains have longer braking distances than heavy rail (passenger) services and heavier train weights which mean that an impact at very low speed would still crush a light rail service.
Any use of track for proposed 'mixed' services particularly with a substantial number of train per hour would involve complex signalling arrangements with multiple blocks to give enough capacity and still keep light rail users protected from heavy rail operations - both passenger and freight !

Does the existing double blocking on the NR shared section differentiate between mainline passenger and freight services, or is it exactly the same?
Will the new Metro stock still require double blocking, or has the crash worthiness been specified differently, now that mixed running is normal, and there’ll also be more of it once the South Shields branch is doubled?

There is no need for double-blocking of freight and no way the signaling can distinguish a passenger from a freight train. The rule is that any train approaching a red signal at maximum permitted speed should be brought to a halt before the first place another train might be at the time. There may be some longer overlaps and/or reduces speeds for freight to comply with the rule.

I've read somewhere on here that the new Stadler stock meets the heavy rail crashworthiness requirement so in principle should allow those constraints to be removed on the Sunderland line and no similar ones required on any other lines such as Leamside where they might operate a service in future.

 

[Halifaxlad]

does anybody know how many more platforms York is getting ?

Im just thinking about HS2/NPHR and the potential future reopening of the Market Weighton line and how that may impact upon platform capacity.

 

[darloscott]

Getting my crayons out, if we were to extend the Metro line from South Hylton via Washington back round to Gateshead, would it perhaps allow us to reduce the frequency of Metro services to every 20 mins, running opposite directions around a loop. That would still give an increase to 6 services an hour but three in one direction and three in the other. Admittedly that's very crayonista but would it handle the existing loading?
That would give a 20 min frequency along the existing Durham Coast line opening up paths for an extra passenger service as well as opportunities to run freight. Equally a 20 min frequency on the Leamside - whatever form that would take - would allow some freight paths and potentially passenger service given there is no space for the much wanted Teesside-Tyneside express.
That way you'd still keep a 5 minute frequency from Pelaw up through the Metro core too.

 

[waverley47]

Don't get me wrong, the Leamside line has possibilities and merits - there's an argument for speeding up services on the ECML, there's an argument for a P&R station near the A690, there's an argument for trying to serve Washington with some kind of light/heavy rail, there are other populations along the existing ECML that could benefit from trains stopping there (whether that's improved frequency at Chester le Street or new stations near places like Newton Aycliffe/ Birtley)... it's a lot better than the rural villages that are often brought up as "priorities"... but I'd like to see something a bit more concrete than a simplistic "re-open the Leamside" - I want more detail about *why*

This. One hundred percent, it's all well and good to talk about adding the leamside into the Tyne and Wear network, but we need a why. The line isn't a panacea, you can't solve the metro problems, and use it as a heavy freight line, and send a new Newcastle - Middlesbrough express down there, as patching would be a nightmare. A 50mph stopping service, stopping every mile or so, is going to cause havoc with any freight or fast-ish passenger, especially if we aim for a 10 minute frequency.

There is a need for more paths on the northern ECML, so let's start with this. Every hour, there are 6 LDHS services between Newcastle and Darlington, each with different stopping patterns. Northern couldn't path their new Newcastle - Teeside "express" service down the Durham line, there's a lot of freight going to Tyne Dock, Millerhill and Oxwellmains, and the containers to Grangemouth/Mossend. Add in any future plans to divert freight via the ECML (which I am yet to see, but lets not discount it) or any further HS2 services to Newcastle and that's a lot to path.

All of these are trying to fit through the 20 mile double track railway between Ferryhill and Newcastle. Yes, some could and indeed have been pathed through the Durham Coast, but it's slow, packed with metro, and at the end of the day, at some point there's probably going to be a desire to put more passenger services down there. Also, I'm not sure about RA, but I'm assuming it's probably lower. What we have is a bottleneck to the south of Newcastle. It's almost as if we could use a second, slower line to take some of the slack off, to path freight down, to free up some paths, to send maybe even a couple of new passenger services if it links anywhere of decent size.

This is what the Leamside line could be used for, and while I'm not sold on it yet, it's looking increasingly likely that at some point, it's probably necessary.

So we can send freight that way, great. It's there in extremis as a diversion, great. Passenger services though?

The problem with the metro is we assume both that Nexus wants it, and can serve it. It's a long way to Durham, any trains going through the core would need to come at the expense of frequency elsewhere, and at the end of the day, they probably don't have the spare trains. Metro isn't the answer to this problem, they do a good job but adding another southerly destination is going to come at the cost of South Shields or Sunderland. That's the way of the world.

Leamside goes through a couple of big places. Washington, Penshaw and a new Durham East Parkway station would probably all attract large numbers of passengers, with a 30 minute frequency to Newcastle, and decent sized trains, it could be quite a nice earner for whoever takes over Northern. As well as that, Ferryhill, Chilton Moor and Bowburn would not be the smallest places in the world to have stations. You could even extend the metro from South Hylton to an interchange at Penshaw, linking with Sunderland.

The Leamside line would be about 25 miles each way to Ferryhill. Add in five stations, and with 75 mph track, you're looking at just over an hour shuttle back and forth. Probably just too much for two units, but fine with three. But that gives you an odd timetable, and if we're looking for commuters, then an even timetable is going to be far more attractive, even at 2tph.

But, and this is a big but, Newcastle is currently trying to open another 25 mile line, through prime commuter territory. Add them both up, and you're looking at about 50 miles, with 10 or so station stops between Newbiggin (alternatively Ashington or Blyth) and Ferryhill (or Durham East Parkway). With 2tph, and an average speed of somewhere about 50mph, that makes 6 units nicely. It would be a new commuter line, opening up regeneration and transport links across large population centres, previously long or circuitous routes, and places with previously poor public transport.

With 6 units of four cars, and let's say 1bn quid at the extreme end, you get decent connectivity, a new freight line to improve capacity on the ECML, an improved transport offering in the North East, where it is poorer than most other cities in the UK, and a commitment to new Tory voters, all in one little package. It looks good for the environment, it looks better to placate voters concerned about spending money on getting from Birmingham to London more quickly, especially in a city which arguable will probably see the least benefit from HS2 for the time being. You could even string up some wires on the cheap.

This is the place of the Leamside line, connection with Ashington or not. It's not going to be a metro line. It might be a freight diversion route. And if you can path a couple of trains an hour each way into Newcastle across the bridges, then sending a new commuter train service stacks the bcr in favour. It can't be either freight or commuter rail, it needs to be both.

 

[greyman42]

does anybody know how many more platforms York is getting ?

Im just thinking about HS2/NPHR and the potential future reopening of the Market Weighton line and how that may impact upon platform capacity.

I am not aware of York getting any more platforms.

 

[edwin_m]

I am not aware of York getting any more platforms.

The quote in the OP said it was being considered. I doubt there's more room for through platforms, but they could restore the empty bay next to the one the Harrogate trains normally use. The only other space would be on the east side of the station. The north-facing ones aren't much use as they could only go towards Scarborough but maybe another south-facing bay or two would be helpful, especially if long enough for an intercity formation.

 

[ABB125]

The quote in the OP said it was being considered. I doubt there's more room for through platforms, but they could restore the empty bay next to the one the Harrogate trains normally use. The only other space would be on the east side of the station. The north-facing ones aren't much use as they could only go towards Scarborough but maybe another south-facing bay or two would be helpful, especially if long enough for an intercity formation.

Would it be possible to "knock through" the ends of the north-facing Harrogate platforms and south facing "London terminal" platforms (I'm not sure what the numbers are) to form two new, long through platforms? It's been a few years since I was last at York station, but I don't think there is much of note that would be in the way?