Leamside Line

[William3000]

Leamside Line's return given government boost - BBC News

Work on the Leamside Line is set to progress as part of the Northern Powerhouse Rail initiative.

www.bbc.com

The Government has announced plans to reopen the recently partialled dismantled Leamside Line between Pelaw and Ferryhill. What I can’t quite work out is what is proposed. Is it a Metro extension linking Pelaw and South Hylton via Washington? And will the Leamside heavy rail line run alongside on the same or adjacent tracks along this stretch. Perhaps the Governent has looked at the success of the Northumberland line to Ashington and seen the benefits of investing in reforming infrastructure in what is a densely populated area with hitherto poor public transport options.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

First, no announcement from this government is worth anything because they change their minds and do U-turns more often than the rest of us change our clothing.

Second, the question of what this re-opened line will prioritise has been debated in this forum extensively because some suggestions are conflict with others. This new announcement seems to be about a regular passenger service plus a bit of freight to provide some relief for the east coast main line. However as Ferryhill to Darlington is still two track, how useful that will be is uncertain.

 

[Topological]

This is a project that needs to progress.

I only hope that the voters of the North East hold the government to account if nothing has progressed by the next election.

Expect to see soil testing etc.

 

[bluenoxid]

The Leamside line is one of those proposals that evolves to be whatever you perceive you want it to be. Anyone standing back is left confused.

Is it a Metro extension to Washington from Pelaw/South Hylton
Is it a local service
Is it for intercity services

Personally, I think that unless someone is funding a new town south of Washington, they should focus on connecting Washington to Newcastle upon Tyne using either Train, Tram-Train or Tyne and Wear Metro rapid transit stock with thoughts about whether to just stay on the existing formation or create a brand new line into the centre of Washington.

 

[bramling]

The Leamside line is one of those proposals that evolves to be whatever you perceive you want it to be. Anyone standing back is left confused.

Is it a Metro extension to Washington from Pelaw/South Hylton
Is it a local service
Is it for intercity services

Personally, I think that unless someone is funding a new town south of Washington, they should focus on connecting Washington to Newcastle upon Tyne using either Train, Tram-Train or Tyne and Wear Metro rapid transit stock with thoughts about whether to just stay on the existing formation or create a brand new line into the centre of Washington.

I was mystified on first reading it, however it does occur that it would be possible for metro and heavy rail services to share the northern end of the route in the same way they do on the Sunderland line. So it is quite possible to have both, at least until electrification becomes an issue.

 

[waverley47]

There will be an extension of the Metro via the Leamside line about as far as the south end of the Victoria Viaduct. This has been funded, sort of, and the plans are in place for this. Three w stations are planned, although I cannot remember their names off the top of my head. The 555s have advanced crash worthiness and can therefore run without the prior need for double blocking, and therefore any conversion, along with the existing dual use section, should have increased capacity as a result of this.

This announcement seems to be about two additional bits of funding, in connection with the above.

The first is a connection from the new/reinstated alignment onto the 'big railway' at Pelaw, allowing access for trains onto this alignment.

The second seems to be funding for, or at least an announcement of intent to fund, the reinstatement of the link from Ferryhill to the south end of the Victoria Viaduct, as a diversionary route. This bit is the new announcement, and we shall see if this gets built.

Building this link gets you a semi-segregated freight route from Heaton Depot, along the third line to Newcastle, via King Edward Bridge and Pelaw, the Leamside line to Ferryhill, the Stillington line, the flyunder at Northallerton and the slow lines from there to Skelton Bridge Jn. A reinstated Bensham Chord would also allow segregated access to and from Tyne Yard, which would be just as valuable.

It's unlikely that there would ever be enough demand to build stations down this way, and run the associated stopping services, but we'll see. Any reinstatement would likely exist purely as a diversionary measure, and to take freight off the busy two track section of the ECML. It will be low speed, and the metro on the north end would preclude any high speed services.

 

[Sonik]

to take freight off the busy two track section of the ECML

This is the key point IMO

Building this link gets you a semi-segregated freight route from Heaton Depot, along the third line to Newcastle, via King Edward Bridge and Pelaw, the Leamside line to Ferryhill, the Stillington line, the flyunder at Northallerton and the slow lines from there to Skelton Bridge Jn.

Which makes this a lot more than (just) a local/commuter travel scheme. The capacity uplift will be substantial, for both long distance passenger services and freight.

 

[class26]

First, no announcement from this government is worth anything because they change their minds and do U-turns more often than the rest of us change our clothing.

Second, the question of what this re-opened line will prioritise has been debated in this forum extensively because some suggestions are conflict with others. This new announcement seems to be about a regular passenger service plus a bit of freight to provide some relief for the east coast main line. However as Ferryhill to Darlington is still two track, how useful that will be is uncertain.

Indeed, this is just to look as they are doing something when we all know there is no plan and no money even if there was a plan
Listening to reeves yesterday was sickening. she claimed credit for projects coming to fruition (electrification between manchester and stalybridge being just one) now which largely happened during the 14 year conservative era. She even claimed the Leamside line was a "new line" she would build.

 

[nw1]

Indeed, this is just to look as they are doing something when we all know there is no plan and no money even if there was a plan
Listening to reeves yesterday was sickening. she claimed credit for projects coming to fruition (electrification between manchester and stalybridge being just one) now which largely happened during the 14 year conservative era. She even claimed the Leamside line was a "new line" she would build.

I see this has become a Labour bashing thread - can that stick to the General Discussion and we just stick to the merits or otherwise of the proposal here? Really don't want to see it here, to be quite frank. Just be thankful we don't have one Donald J. Trump as our leader.

 

[class26]

I see this has become a Labour bashing thread - can that stick to the General Discussion and we just stick to the merits or otherwise of the proposal here? Really don't want to see it here, to be quite frank. Just be thankful we don't have one Donald J. Trump as our leader.

Nothing said is not true

 

[nw1]

Nothing said is not true

But we don't come on to here to view anti-Labour rants. We'll go onto the appropriate thread on GD if we want this. As I said, just be thankful you do not live under Donald Trump - or worse.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

But we do have hold the government (any shade) to account for its transport policies and long-term plans.
Labour won't be there for ever, and we need a longer view than a single parliament.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

But we don't come on to here to view anti-Labour rants. We'll go onto the appropriate thread on GD if we want this. As I said, just be thankful you do not live under Donald Trump - or worse.

Certainly this is a railway forum, not one about politics, and politics should be mentioned only when relevant to the discussion. However what motivated this new announcement and whether it's reliable is central to the debate whereas your opinion of Donald Trump is not. I suggest you practise what you preach.

 

[nw1]

Certainly this is a railway forum, not one about politics, and politics should be mentioned only when relevant to the discussion. However what motivated this new announcement and whether it's reliable is central to the debate whereas your opinion of Donald Trump is not. I suggest you practise what you preach.

Whereas your heavily-biased and rather over-emotive phrasing is OK, I guess. That together with the description of the words of Reeves as "sickening" by another poster. Both comments just come across to me as a bit of a rant, rather than an objective discussion on the issues. If it was more objective criticism of the government using non-emotive language, I wouldn't have a problem.

But I'll leave it there, just explaining my POV.

 

[Solweytracker]

This is the key point IMO


Which makes this a lot more than (just) a local/commuter travel scheme. The capacity uplift will be substantial, for both long distance passenger services and freight.

There is at present 1 regular daily Anglo-Scottish revenue-earning freight each way through Newcastle (4S95 -4E99 Teesport containers), along with a departmental train (6S31/6E36 Doncaster – Millerhill, when it runs, or corresponding return Light Engines). There is a departmental train, Doncaster - Tyne Yard (6N71/6D67). (Sources: RTT*).

Accepting freight traffic in the area seems at a particularly low point, can someone help me understand the financial justification for prioritising rebuilding the south end of the Leamside line as a diversionary route to increase freight capacity? There seems to be other northern locations where there is an imminent capacity need.

*There are also a few daily biomass trains, Tyne Coal Terminal - Drax which are usually routed along the coast line.

 

[edwin_m]

Accepting freight traffic in the area seems at a particularly low point, can someone help me understand the financial justification for prioritising rebuilding the south end of the Leamside line as a diversionary route to increase freight capacity? There seems to be other northern locations where there is an imminent capacity need.

Transferring some freight off the WCML? Although it's longer, MML slow lines, Old Road to Rotherham, Dearne Valley to York then Slows to Northallerton, Eaglescliffe, Ferryhill and Leamside provides a north-south route with very little use of Intercity tracks.

 

[Ben427]

Nothing said is not true

There is actually

TRU funding has been confirmed for alot of it under the new Govt. I know because I'm involved in the project rather than watching GBNews

 

[Sonik]

Accepting freight traffic in the area seems at a particularly low point, can someone help me understand the financial justification for prioritising rebuilding the south end of the Leamside line as a diversionary route to increase freight capacity? There seems to be other northern locations where there is an imminent capacity need.

I'd suggest that ECML is currently little used for freight *because* of the existing constraint; removing it will provide new route opportunities.

Worth to note here that the end of coal power has removed a huge number of regular trains from the Midlands, Yorkshire and the North east, creating much latent capacity for new flows, such as the fast growing intermodal (both maritime and domestic) and construction materials (e.g. cement from Dunbar which already supplies terminals in England).

When HS2 was conceived 15 years ago, this capacity was not considered because coal trains were still running.

Transferring some freight off the WCML? Although it's longer, MML slow lines, Old Road to Rotherham, Dearne Valley to York then Slows to Northallerton, Eaglescliffe, Ferryhill and Leamside provides a north-south route with very little use of Intercity tracks.

This^

Besides WCML, also potential here to relieve NLL/GOB and the F2MN constraint at Leicester, via Werrington and Lincoln.

And there's now EWR Oxford to Bedford (and then the north via Corby & Syston) for Southampton flows

 

[class26]

There is actually

TRU funding has been confirmed for alot of it under the new Govt. I know because I'm involved in the project rather than watching GBNews

I am fully aware that the TRU is funded bnut I was reffering to reeves statement of 45 billion for new line between Liverpool & manchester where only 1.5 billion is confirmed

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Whereas your heavily-biased and rather over-emotive phrasing is OK, I guess. That together with the description of the words of Reeves as "sickening" by another poster. Both comments just come across to me as a bit of a rant, rather than an objective discussion on the issues. If it was more objective criticism of the government using non-emotive language, I wouldn't have a problem.

But I'll leave it there, just explaining my POV.

Your POV did not need explaining. It's glaringly obvious.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2026 ==

Besides WCML, also potential here to relieve NLL/GOB and the F2MN constraint at Leicester, via Werrington and Lincoln.

And there's now EWR Oxford to Bedford (and then the north via Corby & Syston) for Southampton flows

When the freight trains leave Lincoln, how do they access the Leamside Line without occupying two track sections of the ECML? Surely Post No. 16 offers a better suggestion via Syston North?

 

[edwin_m]

When the freight trains leave Lincoln, how do they access the Leamside Line without occupying two track sections of the ECML? Surely Post No. 16 offers a better suggestion via Syston North?

You could go via Gainsborough, Decoy flyover and Hare Park Junction, which would avoid the main ECML but use the two-track but slower Leeds line. But I agree my previous suggestion is better!

There is of course the objection that all of these routes feed into the two-track ECML to get to Scotland, for which there is no alternative compared a route via Settle and the GSW avoiding most of the WCML. However, the North East has a lot more population and industry than similar latitudes further west, so more potential for trains to start and end their journeys there. Also a Settle/GSW route runs into problems getting through either Manchester or Leeds, and also Glasgow, so might not offer much capacity in practice.

 

[WTT Gremlin]

I suspect that in practice the largest single benefit that the Leamside Line would provide the network is Diversionary Capacity, broadly equal for the ECML & Durham Coast. Especially when taking into account Tyne & Weir Metro increasing service level from 5tph to 6tph which will only increase the current challenges with diversions via the Durham Coast (both pre & post Dec25).

Regarding freight; Teesport has become a fairly important node for container shipping with short sea links so there are opportunities there, though paths north across the border will remain the major bottleneck they have been since long before the ECML recast. Additionally, whilst freight operators will seldom 'like' being sent on a longer route, some can prove overall to be quicker, as looping most freight just for one train to pass will likely 'cost' a minimum of 10 minutes the equation can change very quickly. Whilst the holy grail is getting to a point where a FOC can get an addition 0.5 or even whole circuit, relatively small reductions can reap significant benefits when enabling a more efficient driver diagram(s).

PS. There is no route across the Anglo-Scottish border which doesn't attract objects, and present physical infrastructure limitations.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

There is at present 1 regular daily Anglo-Scottish revenue-earning freight each way through Newcastle (4S95 -4E99 Teesport containers), along with a departmental train (6S31/6E36 Doncaster – Millerhill, when it runs, or corresponding return Light Engines). There is a departmental train, Doncaster - Tyne Yard (6N71/6D67). (Sources: RTT*).

Accepting freight traffic in the area seems at a particularly low point, can someone help me understand the financial justification for prioritising rebuilding the south end of the Leamside line as a diversionary route to increase freight capacity? There seems to be other northern locations where there is an imminent capacity need.

*There are also a few daily biomass trains, Tyne Coal Terminal - Drax which are usually routed along the coast line.

Your missing the most important service, 4E04/4S04 Mossend - Doncaster IPort.

Also the occasional Oxwellmains - Hunslet service that runs.

And before Lindsey Oil Refinery went under or if it ever returns there was the Jarrow - Lindsey service too.

Plus there are aspirations for future growth services on that corridor that already have paths in. Freightliner Doncaster Europort to Mossend for example.

 

[DH1Commuter]

There will be an extension of the Metro via the Leamside line about as far as the south end of the Victoria Viaduct. This has been funded, sort of, and the plans are in place for this. Three w stations are planned, although I cannot remember their names off the top of my head. The 555s have advanced crash worthiness and can therefore run without the prior need for double blocking, and therefore any conversion, along with the existing dual use section, should have increased capacity as a result of this.

This announcement seems to be about two additional bits of funding, in connection with the above.

The first is a connection from the new/reinstated alignment onto the 'big railway' at Pelaw, allowing access for trains onto this alignment.

The second seems to be funding for, or at least an announcement of intent to fund, the reinstatement of the link from Ferryhill to the south end of the Victoria Viaduct, as a diversionary route. This bit is the new announcement, and we shall see if this gets built.

Building this link gets you a semi-segregated freight route from Heaton Depot, along the third line to Newcastle, via King Edward Bridge and Pelaw, the Leamside line to Ferryhill, the Stillington line, the flyunder at Northallerton and the slow lines from there to Skelton Bridge Jn. A reinstated Bensham Chord would also allow segregated access to and from Tyne Yard, which would be just as valuable.

It's unlikely that there would ever be enough demand to build stations down this way, and run the associated stopping services, but we'll see. Any reinstatement would likely exist purely as a diversionary measure, and to take freight off the busy two track section of the ECML. It will be low speed, and the metro on the north end would preclude any high speed services.

I’d argue that Ferryhill, Durham A1 Parkway (already P&R) and Houghton would likely be viable. Probably Bowburn as well given the growth in size and affluence.

As you say, the Follingsby and Washington Metro extension is already further ahead.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jan 2026 ==

Actually, to expand further on the Durham Parkway thing, this was planned >2decades ago when P&R from the A1was set up. Given the Leamside, A1 and A690 all meet at the P&R site, the area this could serve as a railhead is potentially huge and, importantly, growing with a lot of middle-class type new housing on the eastern edges of Durham, Thornley and some of the ex-pit villages.

 

[Solweytracker]

Your missing the most important service, 4E04/4S04 Mossend - Doncaster IPort.

Also the occasional Oxwellmains - Hunslet service that runs.

And before Lindsey Oil Refinery went under or if it ever returns there was the Jarrow - Lindsey service too.

Plus there are aspirations for future growth services on that corridor that already have paths in. Freightliner Doncaster Europort to Mossend for example.

4E04/4S04 were excluded as they have unfortunately ceased.

 

[geordieblue]

Of course the Leamside line also runs directly past the Nissan factory in Washington - which has substantial freight potential (I believe some of the metals movements from South Wales to Middlesbrough are already associated with Nissan)

 

[Park47515]

Your missing the most important service, 4E04/4S04 Mossend - Doncaster IPort.

Also the occasional Oxwellmains - Hunslet service that runs.

And before Lindsey Oil Refinery went under or if it ever returns there was the Jarrow - Lindsey service too.

Plus there are aspirations for future growth services on that corridor that already have paths in. Freightliner Doncaster Europort to Mossend for example.

Haven't the 4E stopped running now though?

 

[Solweytracker]

Haven't the 4E stopped running now though?

Yes, 4E04/4S04 have stopped running; my post *25 refers.

 

[Sonik]

There is of course the objection that all of these routes feed into the two-track ECML to get to Scotland, for which there is no alternative compared a route via Settle and the GSW avoiding most of the WCML. However, the North East has a lot more population and industry than similar latitudes further west, so more potential for trains to start and end their journeys there.

Exactly.

All three routes to Scotland are two-track but WCML has higher demand (and even more so due to HS2 curtailment) with Winsford-Weaver Jct being the key constraint in the NW. So my suspicion is that the main goal of this Leamside extension is to accommodate some of the Scottish freight flows to relive that bottleneck, which the S&C can't help with.

 

[GrandCentral]

I'm confused as Kim McGuiness is suggesting that the line will reopen and that the government have confirmed the funding. This is simply not true. The government have given some money for a business case to be produced and that's about it. They will only commit funding in the future if the business case shows value for money.

Fair enough but it seems very dishonest of the Mayor to be announcing a new line that might not even happen.