Pelaw - Bede line

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scott M

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2014
Messages
391
When they double the section of line between Pelaw and Bede, how do you think the signalling will work.
Presumably on approach to stations there will be junction indicators installed to signal if you are going to continue on the metro pathway into the platform or the Jarrow Shell branch pathway which bypasses the platforms; which path do you think will receive plain green and which path will receive green plus feather?

Or do you think they will just scrap the Jarrow Shell platform bypasses and have the freights running straight through the metro stations?

Also, do you think metro will retain the single line working option, in case a slow freight is going to be blocking the line or in the event of a breakdown?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

hacman

Member
Joined
22 Jul 2011
Messages
233
When they double the section of line between Pelaw and Bede, how do you think the signalling will work.
Presumably on approach to stations there will be junction indicators installed to signal if you are going to continue on the metro pathway into the platform or the Jarrow Shell branch pathway which bypasses the platforms; which path do you think will receive plain green and which path will receive green plus feather?

Or do you think they will just scrap the Jarrow Shell platform bypasses and have the freights running straight through the metro stations?

Also, do you think metro will retain the single line working option, in case a slow freight is going to be blocking the line or in the event of a breakdown?

I've just had a look on the planning portal, and there is now a diagram there confirming a few details.

The bypass loops at stations are not being retained. The line will not be bi-directionally signalled. There is mention of a new station at Bill Quay.
 
Last edited:

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
25,878
When they double the section of line between Pelaw and Bede, how do you think the signalling will work.
Presumably on approach to stations there will be junction indicators installed to signal if you are going to continue on the metro pathway into the platform or the Jarrow Shell branch pathway which bypasses the platforms; which path do you think will receive plain green and which path will receive green plus feather?

Or do you think they will just scrap the Jarrow Shell platform bypasses and have the freights running straight through the metro stations?

Also, do you think metro will retain the single line working option, in case a slow freight is going to be blocking the line or in the event of a breakdown?
If you look at my post #29 in the earlier thread about the redoubling, I mentioned which document includes the track layout, but as @hacman has mentioned it will end up as a conventional two track railway with junctions and crossovers.

www.railforums.co.uk/threads/t-w-metro-given-£103m-additional-funding-in-budget-2020.201929/#post-4856605
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jkkne

Member
Joined
13 Aug 2012
Messages
232
I've just had a look on the planning portal, and there is now a diagram there confirming a few details.

The bypass loops at stations are not being retained. The line will not be bi-directionally signalled. There is mention of a new station at Bill Quay.

from what I gather the new station will be Mill Lane, Hebburn as opposed to Bill Quay (though I appreciate there’s such a short distance between the two areas). I would guess this would be to support the mass new housing in Hebburn.
 

Scott M

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2014
Messages
391
from what I gather the new station will be Mill Lane, Hebburn as opposed to Bill Quay (though I appreciate there’s such a short distance between the two areas). I would guess this would be to support the mass new housing in Hebburn.
Makes sense. With a housing estate that big I can imagine there will be a good amount of commuters.
 

davetheguard

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
1,351

Scott M

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2014
Messages
391
Anyone know what the date is for work to commence on this scheme?
I had heard from friends they were planning on starting it after the 2021 Great North Run. Don’t have a source to back that up though, just word of mouth.

There is talk of a 12 week line closure, which will be a nightmare for commuters. Hopefully they will make the rail replacement buses frequent enough to cover rush hour demand, as those metros are usually full in the morning and I don’t think you would fit that many passengers on a bus.

Fortunately there is the 27 bus as a back up, but that goes around the world.
 

jkkne

Member
Joined
13 Aug 2012
Messages
232
Nexus have told South Tyneside Council it’ll be September 2022 for 12 weeks.

usual replacement buses will be in service between Heworth and Shields.
 

davetheguard

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
1,351
Thanks for the three replies above. Lets hope "late 2022" doesn't give some bean counter somewhere in government time to descope, change, cancel or just generally mess up this useful project. Sorry to be a cynic, but I just keep seeing it too often....
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
14,433
There is talk of a 12 week line closure, which will be a nightmare for commuters. Hopefully they will make the rail replacement buses frequent enough to cover rush hour demand, as those metros are usually full in the morning and I don’t think you would fit that many passengers on a bus.

I wouldn't count on there being such a thing as a "rush hour" back by then!
 

Scott M

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2014
Messages
391
Thanks for the three replies above. Lets hope "late 2022" doesn't give some bean counter somewhere in government time to descope, change, cancel or just generally mess up this useful project. Sorry to be a cynic, but I just keep seeing it too often....
Luckily, due to the relatively limited scope of the project, I don’t think there is much room to tinker with it shy of cancelling it all together. They have already removed all potential bells and whistles from the outset, such as:

•Not retaining the freight station bypasses
•Not retaining bidi signalling

Doubt they would cancel the new station, as that is probably one of the only aspects of the project that they can envisage generating a profit.
 

D365

Established Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
8,628
Luckily, due to the relatively limited scope of the project, I don’t think there is much room to tinker with it shy of cancelling it all together. They have already removed all potential bells and whistles from the outset, such as:

•Not retaining the freight station bypasses
•Not retaining bidi signalling
Would there have been much benefit to keeping the bypasses? The junctions at either end of each station would have added complexity.
 

Scott M

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2014
Messages
391
Would there have been much benefit to keeping the bypasses? The junctions at either end of each station would have added complexity.
Probably not tbh. The line is short enough that a freight should make it through without delaying a metro if signalled correctly (ie held back until a metro has just passed). Not even sure if the bypasses would be long enough to hold a freight out the way of the metro even if they wanted to.

Speaking of signalling, I wonder if AWS and TPWS will need to be installed for the freight at metro signals?
 
Last edited:

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
25,878
There’s only one freight path each way each day according to RTT, but do they all get used?
I suspect it’s only the westbound direction where there’ll be the crossing conflicts with eastbound Metros that will need to be well timed, the other way the tanks can wait their turn at Pelaw.

It’s relatively far simpler than what happens already with the Tyne Dock trains in the Boldon area, so let’s not overcomplicate things...

Dont know about AWS/TPWS but it seems unlikely they’d do anything revolutionary...
 

Swanny200

Member
Joined
18 Sep 2010
Messages
601
There’s only one freight path each way each day according to RTT, but do they all get used?
I suspect it’s only the westbound direction where there’ll be the crossing conflicts with eastbound Metros that will need to be well timed, the other way the tanks can wait their turn at Pelaw.

It’s relatively far simpler than what happens already with the Tyne Dock trains in the Boldon area, so let’s not overcomplicate things...

Dont know about AWS/TPWS but it seems unlikely they’d do anything revolutionary...
I live round the corner from Jarrow Shell and to be honest although 3 years here has probably adjusted my ears to the freight going over the a19 spur into the terminal, I would maybe say that path is used 3 times a week at most.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
25,878
I live round the corner from Jarrow Shell and to be honest although 3 years here has probably adjusted my ears to the freight going over the a19 spur into the terminal, I would maybe say that path is used 3 times a week at most.
Thanks, it would be interesting to know the historic usage going back to the 80s, makes you wonder why they kept it separate in the first place...
 

railfan249

Member
Joined
29 Sep 2017
Messages
24
There’s only one freight path each way each day according to RTT, but do they all get used?
I suspect it’s only the westbound direction where there’ll be the crossing conflicts with eastbound Metros that will need to be well timed, the other way the tanks can wait their turn at Pelaw.

It’s relatively far simpler than what happens already with the Tyne Dock trains in the Boldon area, so let’s not overcomplicate things...

Dont know about AWS/TPWS but it seems unlikely they’d do anything revolutionary...
I would expect the signalling would have to go to at least three aspect, if not four.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
25,878
I would expect the signalling would have to go to at least three aspect, if not four.
Yes that’s probably implied by AWS/TPWS, I was really saying it was unlikely to be anything different, before someone suggested ETCS. Its presumably possible to get the exact signal post spacing from the planning drawings, but of course they don’t discuss any technical details, and I suppose the location of further track equipment such as magnets and grids is not required for planning purposes, as they’re all but invisible.
 

hacman

Member
Joined
22 Jul 2011
Messages
233
Would there have been much benefit to keeping the bypasses? The junctions at either end of each station would have added complexity.
Not only complexity but also significantly more points of failure. As the line will have standard unidirectional signalling unless a loop was constructed both sides you'd have the issue that it can only be accessed in one direction without the use of crossovers. Adding these means each loop now has 6 sets of points, an exponentially more complicated interlocking, and for a train on the "wrong" side to be able to utilise the loop you now have to foul the opposite line twice.

There is plenty of space in the plans for the freights to wait at either end prior to entering the Metro infrastructure, so the most simple option will be used of having them wait there until the time is right, then powering through.

Speaking of signalling, I wonder if AWS and TPWS will need to be installed for the freight at metro signals?

The design will use Indusi and AWS / TPWS at each signal, much the same as is currently done south of Pelaw. It's tried and tested, and keeps costs low.

There may be some work to do if Metro eventually gets the signalling upgrade/replacement that was proposed prior to 2010 as part of the "All change" programme, but that has fallen almost completely silent. It's very likely now that if such a replacement went ahead it would be very much like-for-like, rather than anything fancy that is ETRMS or CBTC based, perhaps with the exception of the central core.
 

Scott M

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2014
Messages
391
Not only complexity but also significantly more points of failure. As the line will have standard unidirectional signalling unless a loop was constructed both sides you'd have the issue that it can only be accessed in one direction without the use of crossovers. Adding these means each loop now has 6 sets of points, an exponentially more complicated interlocking, and for a train on the "wrong" side to be able to utilise the loop you now have to foul the opposite line twice.

There is plenty of space in the plans for the freights to wait at either end prior to entering the Metro infrastructure, so the most simple option will be used of having them wait there until the time is right, then powering through.



The design will use Indusi and AWS / TPWS at each signal, much the same as is currently done south of Pelaw. It's tried and tested, and keeps costs low.

There may be some work to do if Metro eventually gets the signalling upgrade/replacement that was proposed prior to 2010 as part of the "All change" programme, but that has fallen almost completely silent. It's very likely now that if such a replacement went ahead it would be very much like-for-like, rather than anything fancy that is ETRMS or CBTC based, perhaps with the exception of the central core.
Makes sense. Guessing it will be minimum of 3 aspect throughout then, as not sure heavy freight could stop at a red quick enough under the current two aspect signalling.

If they are equipping Pelaw-Jarrow/Bede with AWS/TPWS and sending freights down it, wonder if we will ever see the day when Northern send some trains down to South Shields. Maybe a summer special or a Great North Run service...
 
Last edited:

hacman

Member
Joined
22 Jul 2011
Messages
233
Makes sense. Guessing it will be minimum of 3 aspect throughout then, as not sure heavy freight could stop at a red quick enough under the current two aspect signalling.

If they are equipping Pelaw-Jarrow/Bede with AWS/TPWS and sending freights down it, wonder if we will ever see the day when Northern send some trains down to South Shields. Maybe a summer special or a Great North Run service...

The plan calls for all 3-aspect signals between Pelaw and the terminal. That said, the oil tank trains are generally not that long or heavily loaded, so braking distance shouldn't be too much of an issue at the speeds they'll operate along the line.

We'll not be seeing Northern services, as the AWS/TPWS integration stops where the terminal line diverges and does not continue to South Sheilds. The line beyond will also not have appropriate clearances for OHL, structures and platforms, and the platform heights along the entire route are configured specifically for Metro's rollingstock.
 

willgreen

Member
Joined
11 Jan 2020
Messages
354
Location
Leeds
The line beyond will also not have appropriate clearances for OHL, structures and platforms, and the platform heights along the entire route are configured specifically for Metro's rollingstock.
Although... Northern did once run a special to St Peters (or was it Stadium of Light?) on derby day. Obviously running a DMU to a Metro platform on a Network Rail line is very different to sending one down an exclusively Metro line.
 

Anvil1984

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2010
Messages
1,323
Although... Northern did once run a special to St Peters (or was it Stadium of Light?) on derby day. Obviously running a DMU to a Metro platform on a Network Rail line is very different to sending one down an exclusively Metro line.

St Peters was actually a temporary station for Northern (I'm guessing Northern Spirit days) prior to the Metro opening whilst they were doing work in the Sunderland station area in 2001 (but you are right nowadays would see use for Tyne Wear derby specials if and when both teams are in the same league). Of course East Boldon, Brockley Whins and Seaburn are ex National Rail and I don't think have had massive work done and the Metro platforms at Sunderland see dual use either by Grand Central or if Northern are running a double unit

That being said Northern running to South Shields is never going to happen. It'd need regular reviewing by the traincrew and is just an utter waste of time
 

cosmo

Member
Joined
10 Dec 2018
Messages
127
Location
North East England
If they are equipping Pelaw-Jarrow/Bede with AWS/TPWS and sending freights down it, wonder if we will ever see the day when Northern send some trains down to South Shields. Maybe a summer special or a Great North Run service...
As awesome as that would be, Anvil's post above sums it up - OHLE clearances and generally being financially inviable kind of means it's a non-starter. That and South Shields is a terminus station with just 1 platform anyway and it's a fairly quick turnaround for the Metros anyway.
 

Scott M

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2014
Messages
391
Points failure at Hebburn this morn... the sooner they double that section of line the better.
 

railfan249

Member
Joined
29 Sep 2017
Messages
24
Points failure at Hebburn this morn... the sooner they double that section of line the better.
Whether it helps or not in the future would be decided by whether or not the bidirectional signalling is kept, and I cannot remember from the plans whether that is the case.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
25,878
Whether it helps or not in the future would be decided by whether or not the bidirectional signalling is kept, and I cannot remember from the plans whether that is the case.
I think we concluded earlier, eg @hacman in post #2, that there won’t be any bidirectional signalling. Theres a list of signal removal and replacement numbers in the planning documentation, and there aren’t significant changes in the before and after figures. The track diagrams online only show one signal at each position, there’s none seeming to face the wrong way...
 

jkkne

Member
Joined
13 Aug 2012
Messages
232
Points failure at Hebburn this morn... the sooner they double that section of line the better.

It failed later in the day too so they suspended the service. Assume it was a fairly major one as they normally just run trains off one platform instead of 2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top