• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
26,629
Location
Nottingham
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?
I think that would be possible, although the footbridge steps would need replacing by two separate sets, for which space could be a bit tight and there might be heritage issues. There has been talk of doing something similar at Newcastle.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

FQTV

Member
Joined
27 Apr 2012
Messages
1,067
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.


I think that you’re absolutely right about the issues, and some of your ideas aren’t a million miles from the thinking that I mentioned in another thread a little while ago:


Durham to Sunderland being possibly the biggest BCR boost, improving the latter’s potential long distance connectivity massively.
 

waverley47

Member
Joined
17 Apr 2015
Messages
632
I think that you’re absolutely right about the issues, and some of your ideas aren’t a million miles from the thinking that I mentioned in another thread a little while ago:


Durham to Sunderland being possibly the biggest BCR boost, improving the latter’s potential long distance connectivity massively.

The problem with Sunderland in the most though is time and distance.

It's great connecting Sunderland to Durham, but Wearside is quite spread out, and not everyone lives near the metro stations. People will want to commute into Durham or Newcastle from Sunderland, and from Durham into Newcastle, not the other way round. Newcastle is the centre of employment in the northeast, and should be thought of as such.

For an extension of the Metro to Durham, you either get poor frequencies via Washington, or poor connectivity via Sunderland, and at the end of the day, neither of these options are going to serve everyone. If you extend the metro from South Hylton to Durham, you're looking at an expensive route through Durham centre to get somewhere useful, or a somewhat useless station on the east. Additionally, a station at Penshaw might work, but apart from that it doesn't serve the hinterland well.

At the end of the day, build a metro line and it won't serve enough people well enough. Too long to Newcastle centre, to far from Washington to walk, and people from the Durham Coast are still going to drive to Durham if they need to. TheCR doesn't work for metro between Sunderland and Durham, either send a bus or improve the roads. Not enough people for a circuitous metro route.
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
20,552
Location
Airedale
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?
Just the footbridge!
Seriously, reinstating one of the disused south bays would be useful (though operationally it is on the "wrong" side of the station for the majority of terminators - it could perhaps be extended to the south though.
A further platform (island?) beyond 10/11 would be the other option - the buildings that would have to go don't look high value to me.
 

FQTV

Member
Joined
27 Apr 2012
Messages
1,067
The problem with Sunderland in the most though is time and distance.

It's great connecting Sunderland to Durham, but Wearside is quite spread out, and not everyone lives near the metro stations. People will want to commute into Durham or Newcastle from Sunderland, and from Durham into Newcastle, not the other way round. Newcastle is the centre of employment in the northeast, and should be thought of as such.

For an extension of the Metro to Durham, you either get poor frequencies via Washington, or poor connectivity via Sunderland, and at the end of the day, neither of these options are going to serve everyone. If you extend the metro from South Hylton to Durham, you're looking at an expensive route through Durham centre to get somewhere useful, or a somewhat useless station on the east. Additionally, a station at Penshaw might work, but apart from that it doesn't serve the hinterland well.

At the end of the day, build a metro line and it won't serve enough people well enough. Too long to Newcastle centre, to far from Washington to walk, and people from the Durham Coast are still going to drive to Durham if they need to. TheCR doesn't work for metro between Sunderland and Durham, either send a bus or improve the roads. Not enough people for a circuitous metro route.

My position here is a specific angle on your general point, I think; that Metro is not the answer to every problem, nor the unlocker of every opportunity.

My angle is that getting Sunderland to Durham reopened for heavy rail first would massively improve Sunderland’s regional and national connectivity.

It would offer the opportunity to change how Transpennine Express and CrossCountry serves the North East, as well as LNER and Northern, without the tortuous journey time penalty of the Durham Coast route. The A690 corridor between Durham and Sunderland is congested with private motoring, and the route is heavily-bussed, so demand is there. Durham station is not a particularly convenient railhead, and yet it’s Sunderland’s best option for the most part.

Now, of course, heavy rail wouldn’t serve Doxford Park, for example, but that’s what integrated bus and light rail should perhaps be doing.

There does seem to be a bit of an obsession with Metro that clouds things, I fear. Personally, I’d suggest that Metro - perhaps through tram train - should be looking far closer to home with developments into the West End of Newcastle, rather than trying to become some version of The Metropolitan Line.

Likewise, wires to the MetroCentre seem to me to be potentially more useful than Metro would be, especially if it meant that a case for 100mph plus electric stock could be developed for the wider region, possibly including reopening the Scotswood route and looping back across the river into the MetroCentre to avoid reversals and perhaps provide an extra North bank station.

More generally, though, I think that you and @tbtc are exactly right that getting anything sustainably developed needs a much wider and more imaginative discussion than simply banging the ‘Metro Everywhere’ and/or ‘Reopen The Leamside’ drums, and it heartens me that folks like you are thinking the same way.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
26,629
Location
Nottingham
Sounds like yet another symptom of bus deregulation. With no control of the buses Metro is one of the few tools Nexus has in the box, and in some cases using it will result in something more expensive and less suitable.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
9,187
It would offer the opportunity to change how Transpennine Express and CrossCountry serves the North East, as well as LNER and Northern, without the tortuous journey time penalty of the Durham Coast route
Kick Metro off the Sunderland line and replace with faster 25KV mainline units leaving space for Newcastle terminators to extend fast to Sunderland.
Is the Durham coast line inherently slow, or could it be made much faster?
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
9,187
I think the new metro units are capable of using 25kv. That’s a bad idea to kick metro off the line.
But they are too slow to keep out the way.
why is it a bad idea if mainline units could provide a faster service?
 

waverley47

Member
Joined
17 Apr 2015
Messages
632
It would offer the opportunity to change how Transpennine Express and CrossCountry serves the North East, as well as LNER and Northern, without the tortuous journey time penalty of the Durham Coast route. The A690 corridor between Durham and Sunderland is congested with private motoring, and the route is heavily-bussed, so demand is there. Durham station is not a particularly convenient railhead, and yet it’s Sunderland’s best option for the most part.

Cross-country and LNER aren't going to change the way they serve the north east, we can assume that much. There has been much talk in these forums about trimming back the cross-country network, and while this is unlikely, it's probably more so that they will try and add a new destination. LNER also, neither of these operators, nor TPE, are going to want to send their routes on a leisurely detour from Durham via Sunderland and into Newcastle. There aren't enough people wanting to make the journey, Grand Central does a decent job of London flows, and tbh most long distance travellers will go to Durham or Newcastle to make their journey. Newcastle is an attractive destination with bay platforms and enough of a hinterland for decent loadings, and Sunderland doesn't offer that.

There might come a time in the future where TPE extends up the coast from Middlesbrough, or a couple of Newcastle terminators trundle down the coast to Sunderland between other workings, but no-one wants to add another 40 minutes journey time to Newcastle in going via Durham.

I do a lot of the BCRs for projects in Scotland and the North, (working for a consultation department of Herriot-Watt uni in Edinburgh) and if I'm doing a BCR I'm primarily looking at timing loads, passenger flows, regeneration, and the opportunity to serve different locations. The only combination of these that the Leamside fulfills is to offer a new line to Newcastle.
I
I'mreminded here of @Altnabreac rules about reopening. They're not even that far off what we look at when we're doing a consultation for someone. Newcastle is a centre of employment, and Sunderland isn't big enough. Sunderland has a poor offering but it's forty minutes on the metro from a much bigger city, and at the end of the day, Newcastle is the big win here.

There does seem to be a bit of an obsession with Metro that clouds things, I fear. Personally, I’d suggest that Metro - perhaps through tram train - should be looking far closer to home with developments into the West End of Newcastle, rather than trying to become some version of The Metropolitan Line.

I agree here, but I have to say I think we've probably seen the full extent of tram-trains here in the UK. Fully segregated trams (excluding the city centre) work well in Manchester and Edinburgh, and tram trains introduce another point of failure (Sheffield). Any new networks are likely to be trams only, and sending trams along NR metals is probably unlikely here. That said, the south Wales network is self contained and is probably going to work well, capacity issues nonwithstanding. Tram-trains, like the metro, are not a panacea, and while I agree with you about the metropolitan line quote, it's unlikely that normal trams wouldn't work just as well in the West end.

Likewise, wires to the MetroCentre seem to me to be potentially more useful than Metro would be, especially if it meant that a case for 100mph plus electric stock could be developed for the wider region, possibly including reopening the Scotswood route and looping back across the river into the MetroCentre to avoid reversals and perhaps provide an extra North bank station.

I don't think we're ever going to get 100mph plus stock in the North East, it's just too far away from a London terminal to need the speed/capacity (think 100mph on the south WCML), and there probably isn't enough higher speed running to warrant it. That said, a fleet of three or four car trains with decent acceleration would open up the north east, wired or not. The Metrocentre, Ashington, Sunderland and Leamside are all begging for more frequent, longer trains on the heavy rail side. The BCR for most new/reopened routes in the North East is marginal anyway, with decent bus provision and hilly terrain which makes it expensive to build new routes, but the demand could be there. Compare the regeneration argument of Methil/Leven, which on paper looks very similar to Ashington.

Scotswood probably isn't the answer to anything, apart from trams at a push. It's built on, a new bridge at Blaydon would be needed, and the line to Blaydon via Dunston is slow but does okay. That said, absolutely string the wires up, and switch over the network to 25kv, it could be a decent network of commuter lines, and with environmental and economic issues around 'levelling up the country' it looks very good.
 
Last edited:

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
5,281
I think that would be possible, although the footbridge steps would need replacing by two separate sets, for which space could be a bit tight and there might be heritage issues. There has been talk of doing something similar at Newcastle.
They could not even get planning permission at York for ticket barriers so I doubt they will let them take chunks out of the station bridge.
 

Chris NS

Member
Joined
19 Apr 2020
Messages
62
Location
Durham
Right, I've been lurking long enough. In a bored moment I registered. For what it's worth, here's my thoughts on the Leamside line.

As far as I can gather, there has been a consensus for years that the Leamside Line should be reinstated. What there is no consensus on is what a reinstated Leamside Line should be used for. There's broadly three things being pushed for: local services, freight, and fast lines for long-distance passenger services. It could do any one of these three things easily. Two at a push. No chance it could do all three at once.

There's a bajillion combinations that could be speculated over here, so I'll focus on the two things currently being pushed for. Nexus is pretty keen on getting the Metro to Washington, and would probably object to anything that precluded this possibility. Network rail, on the other hand, is primarily focused on increasing capacity and speed on the East Coast Main Line (which is what the OP's report was about). In the latter case, there's two different ways to achieve this. One is to route freight along Leamside which, in combination with Ferryhill slow lines plus Stillington, completely segregates freight from the fast lines. The other option is to route non-stop passenger trains along the Leamside Line, either all the way, or cutting back north of Durham.

My money's on Metro + freight myself. I can't see fast passenger services getting enough support for this to be a real option. Currently there's only 1tph that skips Durham, far too low to justify rebuilding an old line to 100mph+ standard. Diverting existing services away from Durham would cause uproar (and no, a stop at Durham Parkway / Carville won't be accepted as a substitute). It's just about conceivable there would be enough demand for extra fast services if they send HS2 services to Edinburgh up the east coast, but the current mood is strongly leaning to WCML. Metro to Washington certainly would have support, freight is likely to be neutral-ish.

So my prediction: phase 1 = Pelw to Washington (Metro only for now, with proviso that it must support future freight services); phase 2 = Washington to Ferryhill introducing freight over whole line. Possibly phase 3 would add stations south of Washington, but with no-one pushing strongly outside of T&W, probably the back burner.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,883
Location
Reston City Centre
The Leamside looks like a great litmus test for many wider problems in the UK (not just rail). Most people seem to agree that *something* needs to be done, there's a tool that we could use to do it - we just can't agree on how best to use that tool (given that it could be used for very different things).

It's a bit like the Universal Basic Income. I know some left wing people who want it because they see it as something that "the rich" would pay for, that would allow poorer people to have more dignity than just accepting any job with terrible pay/conditions (thus either ensuring that employers have to treat such jobs with a lot more dignity, or allowing people to do something more "productive" with their lives)... and I know some right wing people who want Universal Basic Income because they see it as a way of simplifying (i.e. lowering) benefits - so you provide everyone with a basic "floor" and remove all of the (often means tested) add-ons. So they all agree that a Universal Basic Income would be A Good Thing, but for completely different reasons, and one lot implementing it will go completely against what the other lot are trying to do. Similarly, I know people who voted for Brexit for completely different reasons - hoping for an internationalist Brexit that would allow more immigration from places like India as well as hoping for a nationalist one that would reduce migration from everywhere.

Then (getting back to railways), there's the national/local split. As we've seen elsewhere, there's tension between local "stakeholders" and national ones. Is the infrastructure there for the benefit of the locals or is it there as part of a national plan. We see Andy Burnham wanting Metrolink extensions because Metrolink is something that Greater Manchester can have control over, Metrolink would be their "toy" - the alternative is that Manchester's infrastructure is primarily run for the benefit of longer distance journeys - e.g. the Airport branch where there are nine trains per hour but only two stops per hour at the intermediate local stations. So, in the North East, is the local demand for stations at places like Washington (and links like Sunderland - Durham) more important than the national priorities of yet more long distance services on the York - Newcastle axis? If the local stakeholders only have a tool called "Metro" then they are going to come up with a solution that involves "Metro". Can't blame them for appearing parochial - they have to represent their constituents - and County Durham doesn't get much benefit from trains passing through non-stop. You can make the same argument about HS2 in the Chilterns if you want.

How many minutes of time would a 260m long 800/801 have to save (running non-stop on a faster Leamside alignment) to be more valuable than one/ one hundred/ one thousand people in Washington swapping to a Metro service? And what percentage of Metro passengers would have had to be existing motorists to swing the balance for you (e.g. if they are all existing bus passengers then maybe that would make it less attractive, but if 50% of them currently drive then would that be okay)?

Plus then the debate about whether to improve services to existing markets (like the Chester le Street passengers who see several trains pass through non-stop in between the handful of services that stop there) or speculatively build on the off chance of new demand (e.g. we might be able to create a few new freight flows from Tyne Dock if we create more freight capacity with a "new" line from Tyneside towards Yorkshire).

And what's the trade off between number of freight wagons/ trucks per week and number of passenger carriages per week? e.g. what trade off would you want between passenger and freight before you decided that one was more "worthy" of a path compared to the other? Is a path better being used to take a dozen trucks off the road or a hundred cars off the road?

So, depending on what your perspective is, you can see this as a local project or a national project, you can see the Leamside as a slow line or a fast line, you can focus on today's passengers or build in the expectation of potential demands, you can focus on green credentials or economic boosts, you can slice the problem up whichever way suits your own biases and inbuilt prejudices - we all agree that it's A Good Thing, we just can't agree on which one of the dozens of options for it we ought to be pursuing.

Easy to say "something must be done", but what? I guess it depends on a lot of things - for me, I think there's probably more in favour of a local project, I think that there are already a lot of long distance services (if anything you could thin out the number of existing Yorkshire - Tyneside services). But that's just me.

All I know is that removing "Metro" services from Sunderland seems a non starter, given that there are twice as many local stations nowadays (compared to the days of Pacers running through services to the Metro Centre etc) - you're not going to be able to close all of the local stations down without a huge argument, and if you're going to keep the local stations then it surely makes more sense to have fast accelerating electric traction, which is what the line will have IMHO.

Right, I've been lurking long enough. In a bored moment I registered. For what it's worth, here's my thoughts on the Leamside line.

As far as I can gather, there has been a consensus for years that the Leamside Line should be reinstated. What there is no consensus on is what a reinstated Leamside Line should be used for. There's broadly three things being pushed for: local services, freight, and fast lines for long-distance passenger services. It could do any one of these three things easily. Two at a push. No chance it could do all three at once.

There's a bajillion combinations that could be speculated over here, so I'll focus on the two things currently being pushed for. Nexus is pretty keen on getting the Metro to Washington, and would probably object to anything that precluded this possibility. Network rail, on the other hand, is primarily focused on increasing capacity and speed on the East Coast Main Line (which is what the OP's report was about). In the latter case, there's two different ways to achieve this. One is to route freight along Leamside which, in combination with Ferryhill slow lines plus Stillington, completely segregates freight from the fast lines. The other option is to route non-stop passenger trains along the Leamside Line, either all the way, or cutting back north of Durham.

My money's on Metro + freight myself. I can't see fast passenger services getting enough support for this to be a real option. Currently there's only 1tph that skips Durham, far too low to justify rebuilding an old line to 100mph+ standard. Diverting existing services away from Durham would cause uproar (and no, a stop at Durham Parkway / Carville won't be accepted as a substitute). It's just about conceivable there would be enough demand for extra fast services if they send HS2 services to Edinburgh up the east coast, but the current mood is strongly leaning to WCML. Metro to Washington certainly would have support, freight is likely to be neutral-ish.

So my prediction: phase 1 = Pelw to Washington (Metro only for now, with proviso that it must support future freight services); phase 2 = Washington to Ferryhill introducing freight over whole line. Possibly phase 3 would add stations south of Washington, but with no-one pushing strongly outside of T&W, probably the back burner.

I'm glad you were "bored" enough to sign up and contribute - that's a great first post!
 

EastisECML

Member
Joined
26 Sep 2018
Messages
198
Would there be any point in building a bypass of Durham? It would be for something like a few trains per hour? One LNER service and a couple of freight trains, eventually two HS2 trains which would be a bad mix with freight trains presumably. I've seen mentioned it would likely rejoin the ECML before Chester-le-Street which means that town is no further forward in getting an adequate railway service. By passing Chester-le-Street would involve tunnelling or knocking down homes just north of the town to get back to the ECML.

Might a pair of passing loops from Durham station to Chester-le-Street viaduct be of any use? With CLS station rebuilt onto the loops.

Further down (or is it up?) the line that part of the ECML north of Darlington which passes under the A1(M), curves and passes back under could do with straightening out. Other than that I think the line speeds through Durham are quite decent and any new line would probably not offer up much of a time saving for the cost. Building a direct new route from Darlington to Durham would likely mean having to pass through Spennymoor. The Leamside line seems to enjoy the same legendary status as the Woodhead route in regards to its hypothetical usefulness but I don't think it will ever be reopened given it bypasses Durham and only brushes the edge of Washington and is quite distant from much of the rest of that town.

I think at Northallerton either sticking the platforms on new passing loops or sticking them on the freight line and adding a grade separated link back onto the ECML might be worthwhile. As well as cutting off the corner near Croft and the new southbound platforms at Darlington which I assume are happening.
 
Last edited:

markindurham

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2011
Messages
385
I have said it before - there is definitely future potential for the Leamside being rebuilt - be it for Metro, heavy rail, or both. However, now is not the time, and this COVID-19 crisis hasn't helped. Given the way housing has sprung up in recent years, I can see potential for a local service from Ferryhill to Newcastle, possibly coming from Middlesbrough via Stillington. That was, remember, Railtrack's plan in 2000, then Hatfield happened and it all stopped...

Considering the Leamside alone, stations at Ferryhill, a new one serving Bowburn/Shincliffe (possibly with feeder buses and a decent car park), Carrville (next to the existing Park & Ride), Sherburn, Fencehouses, Penshaw, Washington (again, with a decent car park and bus interchange) and Follingsby Lane. In addition, a north to east chord could be built just south of Victoria Bridge, with the rebuilding of the line through Cox Green to South Hylton.

At least, as we know, the Leamside's alignment is protected.

Between Ferryhill and Norton, a station to serve Sedgefield would be a no brainer too.
 

backontrack

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2014
Messages
6,383
Location
The UK
I have said it before - there is definitely future potential for the Leamside being rebuilt - be it for Metro, heavy rail, or both. However, now is not the time, and this COVID-19 crisis hasn't helped. Given the way housing has sprung up in recent years, I can see potential for a local service from Ferryhill to Newcastle, possibly coming from Middlesbrough via Stillington. That was, remember, Railtrack's plan in 2000, then Hatfield happened and it all stopped...
I like that idea. Probably the only time I'll ever be on the same page as Railtrack.
 

Chris NS

Member
Joined
19 Apr 2020
Messages
62
Location
Durham
Okay, found this on page 44 of this document:


"Driving a step change in growth ultimately needs a step change in the capacity of the railway. This option reinstates an old freight route called the Leamside branch which runs parallel to the ECML from Ferryhill north of Darlington, to Pelaw near Newcastle. Re-opening it would allow fast and slow services to be separated and allow the capacity needed for 9 passenger trains per hour. This option includes upgrades to the Stillington branch to make a continuous parallel route between Northallerton and Newcastle. Also included are works to accommodate the additional services at Newcastle, and in the Pelaw area where passenger, freight and Metro trains share the infrastructure.​
This proposal also has the potential to open up access to suburban rail services, for up to 1 million residents in Country Durham and Tyne and Wear, connecting them to jobs, commerce and the wider transport network. Further potential for Park and Ride sites would allow rail to offer an attractive alternative to the congested road network south of Newcastle. "​
So this seems to reveal the following about Network Rail's thinking:
  • Their primary interest in the Leamside Line is freight.
  • They acknowledge it could also be used as a local passenger line.
  • They think local services could serve both Tyne and Wear and County Durham. (This goes above and beyond Metro's aspirations of serving Washington.)
  • There's no talk of using it for fast LDHS services.
However, according to the OP, the option of cutting back to the ECML is still being considered. Perhaps the fast passenger line option isn't quite off the table yet.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
32,828
Thought this thread would be the best place for this

I assume that’s the short disused south to east curve from the Team Valley to the Carlisle line round by the Royal Mail depot that would allow for moves between Tyne Yard and Gateshead?
(The new track near Bensham curve as mentioned in the list in post #1.)
Freight avoiding main lines is reasonable, as they mentioned, but I think that would be a bit of a stretch for any realistic purpose involving the Metro...
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
26,629
Location
Nottingham
I assume that’s the short disused south to east curve from the Team Valley to the Carlisle line round by the Royal Mail depot that would allow for moves between Tyne Yard and Gateshead?
(The new track near Bensham curve as mentioned in the list in post #1.)
Freight avoiding main lines is reasonable, as they mentioned, but I think that would be a bit of a stretch for any realistic purpose involving the Metro...
That's what is generally referred to as the Bensham Curve. It allows several kinds of freight move to avoid crossing one or both main lines:
  • between Tyne Yard and the Sunderland line (and the Leamside line if re-opened) in both directions
  • from the south via Durham, running directly to Sunderland (or Leamside) without calling into Tyne Yard
  • freight coming from the north into Tyne via the King Edward Bridge
 

Chris NS

Member
Joined
19 Apr 2020
Messages
62
Location
Durham
IIRC, reinstating the Bensham Curve is already on the list of upgrades considered for the EMCL north of York, so this has a good chance of going ahead. I presume the logic behind this is that it would effectively create a pair of slow lines south from Newcastle, by joining up the Tyne valley line and what's currently the freight loops leading to the Tyne Yard. Depending on how much work they plan to do in conjunction with the Bensham Curve, you could have four-tracking as far south as Birtley within the existing rail boundaries,

Network Rail I think is keen to remove freight off the fast lines for the movements listed by edwin_m. Local councils are keen to introduce local services that are currently impossible to path. Team Valley is only one of several aspirations (albeit the easiest and probably the most useful); I've seen proposals to have local services as far south as Chester-le-Street, although I don't know how that would work.

And, with a bit of luck they might upgrade the connecting bit of the Tyne Valley line whilst they're at it. The stretch between Newcastle and the Metrocentre is easily the worst bit.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
32,828
That's what is generally referred to as the Bensham Curve. It allows several kinds of freight move to avoid crossing one or both main lines:
  • between Tyne Yard and the Sunderland line (and the Leamside line if re-opened) in both directions
  • from the south via Durham, running directly to Sunderland (or Leamside) without calling into Tyne Yard
  • freight coming from the north into Tyne via the King Edward Bridge
It’s an odd way of describing it in the original list though, isn’t it? Why not just write “Bensham Curve reinstatement”, if that’s what they mean?
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
32,828
IIRC, reinstating the Bensham Curve is already on the list of upgrades considered for the EMCL north of York, so this has a good chance of going ahead. I presume the logic behind this is that it would effectively create a pair of slow lines south from Newcastle, by joining up the Tyne valley line and what's currently the freight loops leading to the Tyne Yard. Depending on how much work they plan to do in conjunction with the Bensham Curve, you could have four-tracking as far south as Birtley within the existing rail boundaries,

Network Rail I think is keen to remove freight off the fast lines for the movements listed by edwin_m. Local councils are keen to introduce local services that are currently impossible to path. Team Valley is only one of several aspirations (albeit the easiest and probably the most useful); I've seen proposals to have local services as far south as Chester-le-Street, although I don't know how that would work.
AFAICS four tracking to the site of Birtley station is reasonably easy, but going further south to Chester-le-St aren’t they going to need a grade separation scheme, or they’ve just moved all their flat crossing conflicts down there?

Is a reopened station at Birtley going to be attractive to the population in the wider catchment area, it isn’t exactly central?
 

Chris NS

Member
Joined
19 Apr 2020
Messages
62
Location
Durham
Yup, the location of a prospective Birtley station isn't great. The only thing that might count in its favour is that the bus routes from Birtley are painfully slow, so even a walk to a not-that-central station might be less inconvenient.

Grade separation may indeed be necessary to connect slow lines to Chester-le-Street, but there's also the problem of what to do with the trains once they reach there. Terminating and turning round looks impossible in you want to support 9tp through. I can't see it being viable without a project far bigger than anything themed around the Bensham curve.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
26,629
Location
Nottingham
Well into the 1980s it was four-tracked as far south as the junction for Consett, between Birtley and Chester-Le-Street. Beyond that it looks virtually impossible to add extra tracks until Newton Hall where the historic realignment may give a bit of scope … but it's shown on the map as a nature reserve.
 

mrgreen

Member
Joined
14 May 2013
Messages
41
Location
County Durham
Hopefully, if the Bensham curve is reinstated it will be electrified, given that there are wires already to the Royal Mail depot immediately to the south of it. Once that's done it would then only need a couple of miles more OLE to reach the Metro Centre and make it possible to change the Morpeth to Metro centre locals to electric stock.
The Tyne Valley line would then become a possibility for battery operation as it's a pretty level 20 miles for the 3 tph from Metro Centre to Hexham: the drop down from King Edward Bridge to the Metro Centre is the steepest part of the line. And the twistyness of the line means high speeds are never going to be practical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top