Suggestions for how a T&W Metro route could serve Washington

[edwin_m]

From https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/is-rail-always-the-answer.180726/#post-3951725

Washington is the place that I know best - it's certainly a large place to be without a station but it's a difficult place to serve easily given how spread out the housing estates are - one station is still going to be a long way from most people - presumably it'd be on the Leamside line, so on the western fringes of the town - some distance from the Galleries and from Concord - requiring a bus or drive to the station (and Washington residents already have that facility with the Go Ahead 4 to Heworth Metro Station, as well as regular buses directly into central Newcastle).

If opening a "stub" branch into Newcastle then you'd need to offer a very attractive train frequency to get people to head over to the far side of Washington! But if you are opening the Leamside line throughout then it makes sense to put a station in at Washington rather than omit it.

Maybe a Metro extension from South Hylton through Washington to Gateshead would work, since that'd be at lower cost and would provide links to other parts of Wearside (but then you have the problem with that getting in the way of re-opening the Leamside to heavy rail at a future date - would people be happy with this, if it meant that re-opening the Leamside throughout meant paying to upgrade the Metro to Tram-Train?

Interesting thoughts. Going only by mapping sites, it looks like there would be plenty of room for a Metro line alongside the Leamside from about where an extended South Hylton route would re-join up to the existing Metro at Pelaw. The major structures are the A194(M) and A184 overbridges, but as far as I can tell from aerial view these were built for four tracks. As mentioned this would only directly serve the eastern fringe of Washington.

Alternatively, but more difficult, Metro could cut across south of Follingsby to follow the A195 which is still east of the centre but is at least within the build-up area. Getting to the actual centre looks difficult as there is no obvious vacant corridor.

A new crossing of the Wear would also be needed for a route via South Hylton, but this would have the advantage of creating a Sunderland route that didn't rely on sharing Network Rail. The existing Sunderland route would however probably remain as it has its own intermediate catchment - perhaps divert to South Shields to reduce the length of sharing and create a new urban link?

 

[Class 170101]

But why must there be a four line railway? Why not Tram Train or use the existing Metro trains (or their successors) which already share NR tracks with DMUs and Freight Trains?

 

[edwin_m]

But why must there be a four line railway? Why not Tram Train or use the existing Metro trains (or their successors) which already share NR tracks with DMUs and Freight Trains?

That's another option but I was responding to tbtc's suggestion that they might not want to share tracks if Leamside ended up as a fast or busy route.

 

[bluenoxid]

Am I really simplifying things with this proposal to serve Washington.



Metro is obvious
Heavy Rail with potentially a new station serving Gateshead. Electrify to 25kV or 1.5DC with suitable switchover.
New Tram-Train is not unreasonable

 

[Megafuss]

I am always intrigued when somebody mentions the Washington extension as it's not as easy as it sounds.

I think the most obvious answer is a straight conversion of the leamside line from Pelaw Junction to the Barmaton area with a bus interchange station built somewhere on the line. Nexus will need to work with he local bus operator to ensure it works though.

Otherwise you are looking at tunnelling or extensive building work - and that is before a possible link up up with the South Halton branch is brought up

 

[NewcastleOne]

I am always intrigued when somebody mentions the Washington extension as it's not as easy as it sounds.

I think the most obvious answer is a straight conversion of the leamside line from Pelaw Junction to the Barmaton area with a bus interchange station built somewhere on the line. Nexus will need to work with he local bus operator to ensure it works though.

Otherwise you are looking at tunnelling or extensive building work - and that is before a possible link up up with the South Halton branch is brought up

Tunnelling? Plan is just to use the former Leamside Line from Pelaw to South Hlyton with a new bridge over the river. Look I don’t think this Extension is worth it at the moment. This is because there is a low population density in Washington and around where it will go at moment and the line from Sunderland already makes a loss and was a political move not a economic one. So until it is more built up around follinsby and west of South Hlyton don’t expect it to happen any time soon.

The local bus operator is GNE btw who do operate a lot of contracts for Nexus.

 

[adrock1976]

Tunnelling? Plan is just to use the former Leamside Line from Pelaw to South Hlyton with a new bridge over the river. Look I don’t think this Extension is worth it at the moment. This is because there is a low population density in Washington and around where it will go at moment and the line from Sunderland already makes a loss and was a political move not a economic one. So until it is more built up around follinsby and west of South Hlyton don’t expect it to happen any time soon.

The local bus operator is GNE btw who do operate a lot of contracts for Nexus.

Regarding the political move in relation to the line from Sunderland (assuming the non-shared section to South Hylton?), was this because before the 2002 extension, the name of the metro system had "Tyne & Wear Metro" but did not until then venture into Wearside, thus upsetting the locals of Sunderland (are they referred to Makems?) for 22 years from when the original routes opened?

 

[NewcastleOne]

Regarding the political move in relation to the line from Sunderland (assuming the non-shared section to South Hylton?), was this because before the 2002 extension, the name of the metro system had "Tyne & Wear Metro" but did not until then venture into Wearside, thus upsetting the locals of Sunderland (are they referred to Makems?) for 22 years from when the original routes opened?

Yes for both Mackem and the name but I don’t really know if it upset the people if I’m honest I’m not that old to remember the System but I do know a fair bit, anyway the Tyne and Wear Metro name was chosen as it was the name of the PTE (Tyne and Wear PTE) the name also on the Buses then as well. I don’t think it did upset the locals as in the mid 80s the PTE was subsiding a service that ran from Central to Sunderland using pacers which is why some were painted in the same livery. The political move was that at the time of Blair there were a few members of that area in the cabinet which resulted in the extension and hasn’t made it money’s worth. I believe if Railtrack didn’t become a thing then it would have a National Rail service.

 

[markindurham]

Why do you need a new Wear crossing? Rebuild from South Hylton to Penshaw and put in a new east to north chord, which would join the Leamside just before the south end of the Victoria Bridge. There are no obstructions on the trackbeds, and there is plenty of open land to allow the new chord at Penshaw.

 

[NewcastleOne]

Why do you need a new Wear crossing? Rebuild from South Hylton to Penshaw and put in a new east to north chord, which would join the Leamside just before the south end of the Victoria Bridge. There are no obstructions on the trackbeds, and there is plenty of open land to allow the new chord at Penshaw.

I thought it was only 1 track but turns out it was 2 sorry

 

[cosmo]

It's an interesting idea for sure, but the issue is right now there's no actual way to get Metros into Washington proper without rebuilding tracks and building new level crossings south of Follingsby Park as there's nothing after that. Also, there's an issue with getting the trains into the Leamside line in the first place, as the Metro tracks and the Leamside line and NR infrastucture are segregated east of Pelaw Junction - see picture here:



As you can see, the only feasible way would be to build a crossover onto the National Rail tracks, electrify them (assuming the battery technology mooted for the new fleet never comes to fruition) and even then you'd be sharing NR track using wrong-side running (albeit for a short distance) until the LL can be accessed. I know the goods loops don't see as much use as the main liens but if a freight train/Grand Central 180/faulty pantograph were to accidentally tear some down, you'd have serious delays that would affect the whole network since Pelaw is a major interchange as is.

 

[markindurham]

In the grand scheme of things, the arrangement at Pelaw would not be an insurmountable problem, seeing as Metro already shares tracks with NR from Pelaw to Sunderland.

 

[MarkyT]

...there's an issue with getting the trains into the Leamside line in the first place, as the Metro tracks and the Leamside line and NR infrastucture are segregated east of Pelaw Junction - see picture here:

In the grand scheme of things, the arrangement at Pelaw would not be an insurmountable problem, seeing as Metro already shares tracks with NR from Pelaw to Sunderland.

A couple of new single track chords (as shown in yellow below) could allow a nice grade separated junction to be created at Pelaw, with the Metro taking over the Leamside route completely if desired and no track sharing with other NR trains necessary at all in the junction area.

 

[MarkyT]

...rebuilding tracks and building new level crossings south of Follingsby Park as there's nothing after that.

There are level crossings elsewhere on the Metro. Follingsby Lane Looks a very quiet road so might warrant a level crossing, or a simple new road bridge and its ramps might be fairly easy to build there in the empty fields thereabouts. At the next site going south near Sulgrave, reconstruction of the roads would be more difficult and disruptive, so perhaps the lightweight, high performance electric Metro trains could fly over the road here using fairly steep ramps (assuming no freight traffic ever needs to use the alignment again). That's it for vehicular crossings I think, but with the alignment in places being used as a pedestrian route (formally or informally I don't know) there are a number of established accesses that would need addressing.