Ashington, Blyth Tyne - Network Rail commissioned for study

[edwin_m]

Interesting thought, but I think the engineering would be quite tricky. Also you lose the opportunity of onward connections at Central Station (except by making a further change at Monument).

 

[JohnCarlson]

Interesting thought, but I think the engineering would be quite tricky. Also you lose the opportunity of onward connections at Central Station (except by making a further change at Monument).

If you asked the residents of Blyth and Ashington if they would rather have a fast rail service to Newcastle Central Station where you have to change to get to the city center, or one to the city center where they have to change to get to the central station, I wonder which one they would choose.

 

[danielnez1]

If you asked the residents of Blyth and Ashington if they would rather have a fast rail service to Newcastle Central Station where you have to change to get to the city center, or one to the city center where they have to change to get to the central station, I wonder which one they would choose.

IMHO the journey times of a Metro style service would not be advantageous, especially for people in Ashington. Also, the cost of electrification and new rolling stock would likely be high.

I feel the best thing right now is to get a heavy rail service set up as cheaply as possible. Once that's up and running, that would be the appropriate time to look at any potential upgrades or add-ons.

 

[richardrichard]

IMHO the journey times of a Metro style service would not be advantageous, especially for people in Ashington. Also, the cost of electrification and new rolling stock would likely be high.

I feel the best thing right now is to get a heavy rail service set up as cheaply as possible. Once that's up and running, that would be the appropriate time to look at any potential upgrades or add-ons.

Danielnez1 is absolutely right: getting a heavy rail service up and running as soon as possible is what's required, the rest can come later.

Personally, what I'd like to see is a fast, heavy rail service from Ashington, calling at Bedlington, Bebside, Newsham for Blyth, Seaton Deleval (for the new hospital at East Cramlington) and Seghill; an interchange Station at either Northumberland Park or Palmersville - to allow connection to the Metro system - then Mannors and Central station. Hopefully the service will extend onto the MetroCentre or Hexham or even Carlisle. I could also envisage a 'circular service' with the current MetroCentre to Morpeth service extending round to Choppington then Bedlington and Bebside etc, but that can all be sorted out at a later date.

As I understand it, this new trauma hospital being built in East Cramlington is going to serve the whole of Northumberland, North Tyneside and beyond so it makes sense to be able to access it by rail.

Currently, all bus services serving Southeast Northumberland terminate at the Haymarket, which is great for shopping or if you work in that part of the City. Having a heavy rail service that serves Mannors and Central Station and connects with the Metro system will give passengers more options and flexibility and will hopefully become an attractive alternative to using the car.

 

[JohnCarlson]

IMHO the journey times of a Metro style service would not be advantageous, especially for people in Ashington. Also, the cost of electrification and new rolling stock would likely be high.

I feel the best thing right now is to get a heavy rail service set up as cheaply as possible. Once that's up and running, that would be the appropriate time to look at any potential upgrades or add-ons.

Not sure why a metro stye service covering the same rout would be slower then a pacer.

My scheme is of course unlikely to happen as there is not the money to invest in the first place. However I wouldn't be looking at Metro style trains as much as national network trains that can manage to fit in the metro tunnels. They would be duel voltage and I would also bring them into the Metro platforms at Northumberland Park. The Ashington line would be electrified to National Rail standards and an electrified branch would run on to Blyth town center effectively becoming a tram for the last moments of its journey north.

Of course there is no chance of getting this. The best that is likely to happen will be the building of some platforms and loops and one Pacer per hour rasping its way along the track to Newcastle Central Station and I would much rather hive that than nothing.

But the buses stop more ferequently, are not much slower than the train and do get you in to the top of Northumberland Street. Not sure how much of an advantage the low coast train option has over that.

 

[Boysteve]

Personally, what I'd like to see is a fast, heavy rail service from Ashington, calling at Bedlington, Bebside, Newsham for Blyth, Seaton Deleval (for the new hospital at East Cramlington) and Seghill; an interchange Station at either Northumberland Park or Palmersville - to allow connection to the Metro system - then Mannors and Central station. .

Personally I would prefer the interchange with Metro to be Northumberland Park, as those who wish to change for the coast have to double back less.

 

[Eagle]

Not sure why a metro stye service covering the same rout would be slower then a pacer.

Pacers (top speed 75 mph) are considerably faster than Metro trains (50 mph). Plus it's assumed that a Metro service would probably have more stops. Certainly it would have a lot more stops on the existing part of the Metro network (between Northumberland Park and Haymarket) than a heavy rail service would (only calling at Manors on the mainline).

 

[edwin_m]

John's suggestion was for a dual-mode vehicle which could use the Metro from St James to a new connection east of Manors, then run via the ECML to Ashington.

If Manchester ever gets tram-trains the vehicle design adopted there might also be compatible with Tyne and Wear Metro, with 1500V supply instead of 750V and various more minor modifications. This would probably have a top speed of 60mph and better acceleration than a Pacer, but might still be a bit slower where stops are far apart and in particular might cause a capacit problem on the ECML section.

However if we are contemplating electrifying the Ashington branch then an EMU service to Central should also be considered. This would be quicker than either of the other two options and would be able to use any available 25kV EMU.

To me the diesel service is an achievable first step and if that is successful then more could follow. Look at what happened in Bathgate...

 

[#1 driver]

Pacers (top speed 75 mph) are considerably faster than Metro trains (50 mph).

45mph linespeed on blyth & tyne !

 

[richardrichard]

Any kind of passenger rail service on the ABT line is welcome by me, diesel, electric or even steam anything will be better than having to rely on the bus. Currently, in SE Northumberland, passengers have no choice with who they travel with: one company has the monopoly and it shows. Bus routes, in my opinion are run for the benefit of the company not the paying passenger. Lets hope the quality contracts come to Northumberland and then we might get the public transport service we require.

 

[edwin_m]

45mph linespeed on blyth & tyne !

I'm pretty sure the Network Rail study will be tasked with increasing that, not only to give a better journey time but because the slower the trains are the more units and passing loops are needed.

The line was created by joining a series of separate railways and waggonways, so comprises some straightish bits seprarated by tight bends seemingly at random. Freight trains probably couldn't accelerate much above 45mph anyway before having to brake for the next curve, so there hasn't been much reason to increase the speed while it has been freight only. However increasing the straighter bits to 75mph (possibly as a differential 75/45 limit) gives a worthwhile time saving for passenger trains if it can be done without spending a lot.

 

[#1 driver]

Have you ever been over the blyth & tyne ?

45 is PLENTY fast enough there !!

 

[edwin_m]

Have you ever been over the blyth & tyne ?

45 is PLENTY fast enough there !!

Noted, but the study needs to decide whether there is an amount of improvement which is both worthwhile and affordable. Apart from the curves I mentioned and the viaduct over the Blyth which nobody can probably do much about, is the rest all down to track condition or are there other problems? I guess NR may be looking at renewing the signalling too.

 

[danielnez1]

Noted, but the study needs to decide whether there is an amount of improvement which is both worthwhile and affordable. Apart from the curves I mentioned and the viaduct over the Blyth which nobody can probably do much about, is the rest all down to track condition or are there other problems? I guess NR may be looking at renewing the signalling too.

The section south of Newsham to Benton Junction has some tight curves (Seghill and New Hartley spring to mind) however the section north of Newsham doesn’t seem too bad IMO.

AFAIK Network Rail will be looking at resignalling and I believe the GRIP 3 study will look at re-doubling some of the single sections, specifically Newsham - New Hartley.

Seaton Valley Co-op are going to build a new supermarket and petrol station near the ABT at Seaton Delaval, their plans include provision for access to a station halt and station car-park should it be decided to provide a station adjacent to the supermarket.

 

[#1 driver]

The section south of Newsham to Benton Junction has some tight curves (Seghill and New Hartley spring to mind) .

seghill isn't a tight curve !

Earsdon is tho .

however the section north of Newsham doesn’t seem too bad IMO.

have you ever driven over it ?

ALL the B&T is in a shocking state !

AFAIK Network Rail will be looking at resignalling

looking and doing , 2 different things !

I believe the GRIP 3 study will look at re-doubling some of the single sections, specifically Newsham - New Hartley.

one mile of extra track ?
what is the point ?

 

[OxtedL]

one mile of extra track ?
what is the point ?

Currently the passing places on the route seem to be far enough away from half way between Newcastle and Ashington that (speculatively) you might need three units to provide an hourly service, rather than say two. [Or perhaps even just one if they plan to significantly upgrade things?]

I reckon from doing some really very approximate timings based on freight paths that you'd need something in the long(-ish) single section in the middle to sort that and maintain the ability to run occasional freight.

 

[#1 driver]

there aren't any passing places !
double off the main line at Benton , single to Newsham then back to double !

like I said before , what is the point of extending the double line for ( less than , really ) a mile ?

 

[danielnez1]

there aren't any passing places !
double off the main line at Benton , single to Newsham then back to double !

like I said before , what is the point of extending the double line for ( less than , really ) a mile ?

Something to do with allowing trains to pass at speed. However you are asking the wrong people, you should chase it up with NCC or Network Rail for their rationale.

 

[JohnCarlson]

Currently the passing places on the route seem to be far enough away from half way between Newcastle and Ashington that (speculatively) you might need three units to provide an hourly service, rather than say two. [Or perhaps even just one if they plan to significantly upgrade things?]

I reckon from doing some really very approximate timings based on freight paths that you'd need something in the long(-ish) single section in the middle to sort that and maintain the ability to run occasional freight.

This is the pointy I was making before. People often talk of the Blyth and Tyne as being an "easy reopen" for passenger services "because the track is all there."

However when you look at it from the point of view of a passenger service from Ashingtoin to Newcastle what you basically have IIRC is double track at each end with a long single track section in the center on which there is at least on tight curve and on people propose to build three stations.

As well as the track being improved I am sure something would have to be done with signalling as well.

Just to be clear I am not for m a moment saying it should not be done, but that this might not be the simple scheme many people seem to think it is.

 

[edwin_m]

As I understand it there is a short passing loop just after leaving the main line at Benton then a long single track until somewhere around Newsham which would have to either be shortened or have an intermediate loop to allow a passenger service to run while still keeping capacity for freight. The section alongside Metro probably couldn't be doubled without going outside the railway boundary but the rest of it was originally double so the second track could be put back.

Sorry to be a bit vague, it's a year or more since I looked at this one.

 

[JohnCarlson]

As I understand it there is a short passing loop just after leaving the main line at Benton then a long single track until somewhere around Newsham which would have to either be shortened or have an intermediate loop to allow a passenger service to run while still keeping capacity for freight. The section alongside Metro probably couldn't be doubled without going outside the railway boundary but the rest of it was originally double so the second track could be put back.

Sorry to be a bit vague, it's a year or more since I looked at this one.

I know what you mean its a while since I have been there as well.

I think an issue is that on some of the single track secessions the track has obviously been relayed singe double track days and has been slewed or slewed to ease curves or whatever. This would mean that an extra track could not just be added alongside.

Additionally getting a national rail platform alongside the metro station might be more complicated than it seems. It would have to be at either side of the bridge as the bridge abutments are very close to the track. While there seems to be plenty of space om the attached image the grassy area is actually a steeply sloping embankment down to the railway and presumably all kinds of reinforcement would be needed to persuade the householders that there property will not collapse onto the railway after the first heavy rainfall.

My solution would be to run the network rail trains into the metro platforms which would be more convenient for the passengers and reduce the single track section.

John

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There is a short section in the North West, between Navigation Road station and Altrincham station where one of the two heavy rail lines was taken over by the Manchester Metrolink system and what was originally a two-platform Navigation Road heavy rail station now has two facing platforms with one used for the heavy-rail services and the other used for Manchester Metrolink services.

 

[JohnCarlson]

There is a short section in the North West, between Navigation Road station and Altrincham station where one of the two heavy rail lines was taken over by the Manchester Metrolink system and what was originally a two-platform Navigation Road heavy rail station now has two facing platforms with one used for the heavy-rail services and the other used for Manchester Metrolink services.

Adopting something like that could be a solution Paul although not sure if the Metro people would like it.


I had thought of full track sharing as with Sunderland Central from here to the ECML which would also dramatically extend double track running.

John

 

[142094]

Adapting Northumberland Park and the lines on the approach for dual use would be costly, and would have little benefit to Nexus. In an idea world there would be space to put two separate platforms in, but not enough room at the minute.

 

[OxtedL]

Is a platform at Palmersville a viable alternative to a platform at Northumberland Park?

(I realise this has been mentioned before, but I was wondering why people continuously reference NP over Palmersville.)

 

[142094]

Most probably, although again I'd doubt that you would be able to get two in (probably not even possible to double track at that point. Also, it would lose the benefit of having a Metro/rail/bus interchange.

 

[JohnCarlson]

Most probably, although again I'd doubt that you would be able to get two in (probably not even possible to double track at that point. Also, it would lose the benefit of having a Metro/rail/bus interchange.

The station is needed to serve the Northumberland Park business park which is quite big.

Making Northumberland mark duel use with the Metro would be expensive but it would mean you would not have to change platforms to change from train to Metro and reduce the amount of single track on the B and T.

Building an extra platform at NP would mean building in *very* confined space , probably facing all kinds of objections from householders and would increase a bottleneck rather than reduce it.

You makes your choice and pays your money.

John

 

[142094]

You need to see it from Nexus's point of view - i.e. having a different operators trains using its infrastructure and its station, without having any reciprocal benefit. That is, unless Nexus were to levy a track access charge and station charge, along with getting Network Rail to pay for the new connection needed.

 

[edwin_m]

You also have the capacity issue of trains crossing over onto the Metro tracks and crossing back a mile or so away, and it rules out any thought of 25kV electrification until the Metro cars are replaced.

I suspect the grassy bank will be dug out carefully and a concrete retaining wall provided to make room for a platform. If we can dig Crossrail tunnels within a few metres of the Underground then some houses on North Tyneside shouldn't be insurmountable.

 

[JohnCarlson]

You need to see it from Nexus's point of view - i.e. having a different operators trains using its infrastructure and its station, without having any reciprocal benefit. That is, unless Nexus were to levy a track access charge and station charge, along with getting Network Rail to pay for the new connection needed.

Well I didn't expect them to be doing it for free.

Mike Parker of NEXUS has talked of their services going beyond Tyne and Wear. Maybe this could be a regional scheme rather than just a local one.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You also have the capacity issue of trains crossing over onto the Metro tracks and crossing back a mile or so away, and it rules out any thought of 25kV electrification until the Metro cars are replaced.

I suspect the grassy bank will be dug out carefully and a concrete retaining wall provided to make room for a platform. If we can dig Crossrail tunnels within a few metres of the Underground then some houses on North Tyneside shouldn't be insurmountable.

Well we will see what, if anything, happens. My point is though that the cheapest option now may be detrimental to future growth, as was the case with Sunderland Central. :cry: