It wasn’t a bay platform by mid 2019, the planning docs already had a reversing siding beyond the down side platform, which would only be used if a freight needed to pass immediately after a passenger train. The up platform wasn’t proposed for reinstatement, I expect that would only ever happen if a northern extension is added.
The reason for undertaking a Ground Investigation is that the proposal is to have passenger trains running on a regular basis; the standards for running passenger trains is very much more onerous than for freight trains. It is important in a mining area that any ground stability issues are identified and a design be produced to mitigate any problems found. Stations and their ramped footbridges need to have foundations. Earthworks and structural foundations stability may need to be assessed in detail. There could be small areas of contaminated land which may need to be identified, characterised and treated if need be.
I think in that case it was shifting spoil, the waste from many decades of mining, that had been piled up close to the railway rather than any subterranean phenomenon.
As @Bald Rick suggested in the EWR thread it’s the final step before full construction. Probably almost certain to happen now.
Ah well spotted. It could be worse, they might have separated Seaton and Delaval to big it up even further...Looks like the BBC wrongly assumed the DfT had made a mistake in not putting a comma between the two:
Transport Secretary launches £794 million investment to boost rail links in north and south
Final round of Restoring Your Railway Ideas Fund opens, inviting proposals to restore railway lines, services and stations that were closed to passengers in 1964.www.gov.uk
If the closure was 18 days after Labour took power then I suggest the decision was made by the previous government.
This isn't entirely true. Recent development on the Northumberland Line began around 2016, when the Tories took control of Northumberland CC. Since then progress has been fairly swift in railway terms and the government have provided funds for reopening, but Chris Grayling had already visited the line before Johnson even became PM.
No, but it is the case that with years in power from 97 nationally, and locally, they could have done something about it - but did little to nowt - along with other plausible schemes, demonstrating little interest in such new line re-openings. Ivanhoe (serving marginal seats too) being an example. And again I say this as a supporter of the Labour Party.
The current government seems to think it is a vote-winner. Or at least it's part of the general mood music of taking us back to the 50s, which was remembered as quite a nice era by some who weren't there.
I totally agree, but there is a clear value in people who live in places being able to access work opps in larger cities - which creates economic benefits - and allows people to access cheaper housing etc. I see this ref Robin Hood Line. Doubt it gets votes directly tho, or not many. But not everything govts do is just vote driven......believe it or not.
Ah yes, those were the days; we had never had it so good. From the BBC 'On this day' for 20 July 1957:
That was the basis of the case for the Todmorden Curve project, allowing a service from Burnley (in particular) into Manchester.
A couple of years ago, they were proposing to re-use the existing down platform, and have a turnback siding north of the road bridge which would only be used if a freight service needed to pass while the passenger service was timetabled to layover. Looks like they’ve now gone for a revised design with an offline bay platform where all passenger services will be held away from the down line.
Section 10.4.2 of the Design and Access Statement linked to by Killingworth states "The bay track alignment has been designed as not to prohibit future through alignment to the north".
Thanks. I’d browsed through quite a few of the different docs & drawings without actually spotting that. Presumably it would then become a platform loop if that were done?
