Northumberland Line needs greater capacity (lengthened trains and/or higher frequency)

[Tetchytyke]

For all the talk of fares being too cheap, the fares align with the fares charged on Metro, where the large car parks at Regent Centre, Four Lane Ends, and Northumberland Park are charged at £1.50 per day.

It's been very good at doing what it was intended to do- get people out of their cars, off the Spine Road and on to public transport into Newcastle.

A 2-car 158 seats 140 people with standing room for probably another 50-60 (if everyone moves down the train). It's genuinely impressive that these trains are already packed to the rafters.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

One has to call into question the methodology used to predict the demand for services on reopened lines. I can't think of a single reopening this century where demand hasn't far exceded the predicted number of passengers.

It seems to suggest that the modelling used was designed to produce artificially low figures to be used as an arguement against restoring passenger services.

 

[zwk500]

One has to call into question the methodology used to predict the demand for services on reopened lines. I can't think of a single reopening this century where demand hasn't far exceded the predicted number of passengers.

Can you give examples?

Northumberland line predicted 1.4m journeys annually by 2025 (then expected to be Y3) according to a publicly available OBC. In 2025 (Y1) it reported 0.9m journeys, with several stations opening after the initial service start (or not yet open).
Okehampton Y2 report showed the 1st year ramp-up was underestimated but the long-term market size was accurately forecasted.
@Bald Rick has mentioned that Borders got the overall numbers largely right with individual stations slightly varying, and that when Crossrail opened 2 years late it matched the predicted Y3 numerbs (I think, please correct me if wrong!

I have got figures and screenshots in other posts. Sorry I haven't got the time to find them right now.

Whether the predicted/actual usage is being adequately provided for is a rather different question completely.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

Can you give examples?

Off the top of my head a couple of examples, Ebbw Vale first.

"In the first six months, the service carried twice as many passengers as forecast, despite two of the stations not being available for the full period. The first 12 months’ tally was 573,442 passengers, more than double the expected ridership." - Modern railway

And one from north of the border.

Borders Railway, connecting Edinburgh and Tweedbank, reopened in 2015 and has experienced success far exceeding original expectations. The passenger numbers are almost treble those first forecast and the project has been hailed for revolutionising the Scottish Borders economy – increasing business investment, driving footfall, boosting tourism and improving work and leisure opportunities. - East West Rail

 

[stevieinselby]

One has to call into question the methodology used to predict the demand for services on reopened lines. I can't think of a single reopening this century where demand hasn't far exceded the predicted number of passengers.

It seems to suggest that the modelling used was designed to produce artificially low figures to be used as an arguement against restoring passenger services.

The modelling predicts that numbers will rise from zero to a stable long-term level over a few years, as awareness of the new service grows and people start to adapt their lives and travel arrangements to make use of it – you're not going to get everyone switching immediately.

What has tended to happen is that ridership has risen quicker than predicted in the first year or two, but has then settled at around that expected level. The long-term predictions have been pretty accurate, the discrepancy has been in how quickly we will get to that point. This is sometimes then misused by people who say "Look, numbers after 1 year are 50% higher than predicted!" to mean that we underestimate ridership and as such are building lines to a lower spec than we should be and not building others where there is demand for them – when what we really need to do is look at the numbers after 5 years and compare them with the predictions. Yes, it's great that the initial take-up of the line is more rapid than the model suggests, but it doesn't in and of itself mean that the line is over-delivering.

 

[zwk500]

Off the top of my head a couple of examples, Ebbw Vale first.

"In the first six months, the service carried twice as many passengers as forecast, despite two of the stations not being available for the full period. The first 12 months’ tally was 573,442 passengers, more than double the expected ridership." - Modern railway

So a Welsh Government report has some very significant caveats to that:

(from https://www.gov.wales/sites/default...9-06/180125-valleys-rail-strengthening-en.pdf)

Welsh Government report reads:

...research undertaken by the UK Department for Transport (DfT) found that patronage on the Ebbw Vale line exceeded forecasts by some 450% .... The reasons cited for this by Dft [sic] were 1) the exclusion of rail demand arising from the regeneration of the area and also the assumption that the Ebbw Vale steelworks would remain open and 2) the fact that the rail service operates to Cardiff rather than Newport (as assumed in the modelling).

So when people are claiming 450% they are comparing the absolute worst-case scenario projections.

And one from north of the border.

Borders Railway, connecting Edinburgh and Tweedbank, reopened in 2015 and has experienced success far exceeding original expectations. The passenger numbers are almost treble those first forecast and the project has been hailed for revolutionising the Scottish Borders economy – increasing business investment, driving footfall, boosting tourism and improving work and leisure opportunities. - East West Rail

"first forecast" is also a noteworthy wording.

The Scottish Government reports states that the Borders railway rather neatly matched expectations:

(from https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/41659/sct02189915561.pdf)

Screenshot reads:

Passenger Numbers
The Year 1 Evaluation Report noted that a total of 1,267,599 passengers were carried in the first full year of operation (defined as the period 20/09/2015 to 17/09/2016 based on Network Rail industry periods). This was compared to a forecast figure of 1,294,272 although there were large differences at the station level with over-forecasts at the Midlothian stations and under-forecasts at the Borders stations.

In Year 2, analysis of LENNON data provides an equivalent figure of 1,387,819 (defined as the period 18/09/2016 to 16/09/2017), an overall increase of 9.5% over Year 1. It is common for passenger numbers on new rail services to ‘ramp up’ over time and this figure is broadly in line with expectations in this respect. Overall, the number of people travelling to Galashiels and Tweedbank has fallen slightly compared to Year 1 which may be a reflection of a the ‘novelty’ impact of the new line wearing off. Otherwise all stations, including all Midlothian stations, have seen an increase in inbound and outbound travel since Year 1.

note that the Year 1 forecast was overestimated by 26,673 passengers. That's a 2% margin of error.

Any more examples?

What has tended to happen is that ridership has risen quicker than predicted in the first year or two, but has then settled at around that expected level. The long-term predictions have been pretty accurate, the discrepancy has been in how quickly we will get to that point.

Yes, the ramp up figures have increasingly looked unreliable and there's a strong arugment PDFH/TAG should adjust the values to reflect the quicker take-up for a number of reasons (journey planners, social media, construction comms, advertising, and delays in delivery).

Yes, it's great that the initial take-up of the line is more rapid than the model suggests, but it doesn't in and of itself mean that the line is over-delivering.

Very much this.

Of course what is much more difficult to prove is whether the projections that resulted in schemes not being taken forward *were* pessimistic, because the project didn't happen.

 

[Bald Rick]

One has to call into question the methodology used to predict the demand for services on reopened lines. I can't think of a single reopening this century where demand hasn't far exceded the predicted number of passengers.

I can think of several that haven’t. But you eon’t find any press releases abou that.

 

[yorksrob]

Yet the DfT decided we had so many trains, we could afford to get rid of our 153's......

 

[Backroom_boy]

The modelling predicts that numbers will rise from zero to a stable long-term level over a few years, as awareness of the new service grows and people start to adapt their lives and travel arrangements to make use of it – you're not going to get everyone switching immediately.

What has tended to happen is that ridership has risen quicker than predicted in the first year or two, but has then settled at around that expected level. The long-term predictions have been pretty accurate, the discrepancy has been in how quickly we will get to that point. This is sometimes then misused by people who say "Look, numbers after 1 year are 50% higher than predicted!" to mean that we underestimate ridership and as such are building lines to a lower spec than we should be and not building others where there is demand for them – when what we really need to do is look at the numbers after 5 years and compare them with the predictions. Yes, it's great that the initial take-up of the line is more rapid than the model suggests, but it doesn't in and of itself mean that the line is over-delivering.

I think its also been suggested that if a project is delayed by a year or more then the eventual 'Year 1' users will have some of the projected users from 'year 2' ( or 3 or 4 depending how long a delay) in the initial year; ie. It will appear its ramped up quicker only because the project was delayed but demand wasn't.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Perhaps a creative way to free up stock would be for Northern to ask GC to lease some extra 180s temporarily and operate some Carlisle - Newcastle/Middlesborough + Newcastle to Morpeth/Darlington services.
I know the 180s are unreliable and it would require quite a bit of funding for GC to operate some diagrams, but it seems like a good way to utilise some route knowledge that GC already have and their crew diagrams can't be that intensive on the Sunderland route.

Or you could cancel the Morpeth stopper (except for the Chathill extension) and the 2 trains per day Darlington service, and ask LNER/XC/TPE to stop at Cramlington and Chester-le-Street to partially replace it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Perhaps a creative way to free up stock would be for Northern to ask GC to lease some extra 180s temporarily and operate some Carlisle - Newcastle/Middlesborough + Newcastle to Morpeth/Darlington services.
I know the 180s are unreliable and it would require quite a bit of funding for GC to operate some diagrams, but it seems like a good way to utilise some route knowledge that GC already have and their crew diagrams can't be that intensive on the Sunderland route.

Or you could cancel the Morpeth stopper (except for the Chathill extension) and the 2 trains per day Darlington service, and ask LNER/XC/TPE to stop at Cramlington and Chester-le-Street to partially replace it.

"Creativity" to the detriment of certain existing transport users, as mentioned above, is worthy of carrying a far differently based word than creativity....

 

[AlastairFraser]

"Creativity" to the detriment of certain existing transport users, as mentioned above, is worthy of carrying a far differently based word than creativity....

Although most intercity services between Morpeth/Darlington and Newcastle aren't horrifically overcrowded, and commuters using the Morpeth stopper also have the option of driving to Ashington, Blyth or Seaton Delaval for the services which would be strengthened using these units.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Although most intercity services between Morpeth/Darlington and Newcastle aren't horrifically overcrowded, and commuters using the Morpeth stopper also have the option of driving to Ashington, Blyth or Seaton Delaval for the services which would be strengthened using these units.

The matter of "option of driving" above is, from what I am led to believe, something that certain quarters want discouraging.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The matter of "option of driving" above is, from what I am led to believe, something that certain quarters want discouraging.

I would agree normally, but during a rolling stock shortage, far more car commuter trips from places next to the stations that are due to open soon into Newcastle can be transferred onto the railway with the new Northumberland Line services.

Therefore, I don't think temporarily withdrawing most of the stopper services Morpeth to Newcastle would be a terrible idea with Northern's current issues, especially as stops can be inserted to serve Cramlington passengers (and already do serve Morpeth to Newcastle travel) at least twice an hour.

 

[The exile]

Although most intercity services between Morpeth/Darlington and Newcastle aren't horrifically overcrowded, and commuters using the Morpeth stopper also have the option of driving to Ashington, Blyth or Seaton Delaval for the services which would be strengthened using these units.

Qualify that statement to “those commuters who currently drive to stations served by the Morpeth stopper”. Even if we accept that (and ignore the fact that turning away existing customers to attract new ones is not the best way to “sell” the idea of rail as a reliable long-term option) what about those who walk?

 

[AlastairFraser]

Qualify that statement to “those commuters who currently drive to stations served by the Morpeth stopper”. Even if we accept that (and ignore the fact that turning away existing customers to attract new ones is not the best way to “sell” the idea of rail as a reliable long-term option) what about those who walk?

I still propose that XC, LNER and TPE will be stopping at Cramlington, so people who walk, cycle or take buses to the station won't lose out (same at Morpeth).

 

[gingerheid]

Whether the predicted/actual usage is being adequately provided for is a rather different question completely.

Alloa also opened to overcrowding problems.

It seems that what happens is that lines open with insufficient capacity, and then rather than doing anything about it we wait until people get fed up and stop trying to use the service.

This means that service provision, use and projected use come to match.

 

[I'm here now]

Great to see and a good interchange to get the Metro to the coast at Cullercoats, Whitley Bay and Tynemouth.

The usual noises about more capacity with this announcement.

What’s the barriers to 4tph (apart from rolling stock)?

 

[Bald Rick]

What’s the barriers to 4tph (apart from rolling stock)?

Capacity on the ECML and at Newcastle.

 

[chiltern trev]

Capacity on the ECML and at Newcastle.

What about 3 tph - same ECML and Newcastle issue?

 

[edwin_m]

Any extra services potentially also cause problems on the single line sections.

 

[zwk500]

What about 3 tph - same ECML and Newcastle issue?

Any extra services potentially also cause problems on the single line sections.

Benton East Jn (stop) to Holywell Jn (pass), including stop at Northumberland Park - 6 mins
Seghill Jn (pass) to Red House Farm Jn (pass), incl. Seaton Delaval Stop - 4.5 mins

passenger pass to passenger pass movements are 3 minutes jn margin, passenger pass to passenger depart are 1 minute. So the Northumberland Park section would be maxed out at 6 movements per hour, which is 3tph in each direction. And that would leave no room for the freight or any other additionals.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm not sure 4tph (or 3tph) is really required though? It just needs it's 2tph service to be run by 4-car trains and to be Monday to Sunday not just Monday to Saturday!

 

[Bald Rick]

What about 3 tph - same ECML and Newcastle issue?

yes

 

[The exile]

Alloa also opened to overcrowding problems.

It seems that what happens is that lines open with insufficient capacity, and then rather than doing anything about it we wait until people get fed up and stop trying to use the service.

This means that service provision, use and projected use come to match.

Running 6 car trains at half-hourly intervals to Alloa (I know they're not 6-car all day, but even so...) hardly seems like "not doing anything" about capacity issues. It's something we can only dream of down here in the (South)-West

I'm not sure 4tph (or 3tph) is really required though? It just needs it's 2tph service to be run by 4-car trains and to be Monday to Sunday not just Monday to Saturday!

Exactly - that should be the first step (no extra staffing costs). If 2tph with 4 coaches can't cope - then it's time to look at expensive infrastructure changes

 

[Kite159]

And another potential issue, if they increase service frequency to even 3tph it could pull in even more customers from Morpeth/Cramlington. But where to get the extra rolling stock from (as a half-hourly 4 coach service will need 6 units rather than 3) as it will be a case of robbing Paul to pay Peter (or whatever that saying is).

 

[ASX_Terranova]

They should have electrified it, made plans to get some of the 350/2's in. That way its removing slower 70-90mph trains off a busy section of ECML whilst guarenteeing 4 car services to Ashington, Morpeth & Chathill.

 

[Anvil1984]

They should have electrified it, made plans to get some of the 350/2's in. That way its removing slower 70-90mph trains off a busy section of ECML whilst guarenteeing 4 car services to Ashington, Morpeth & Chathill.

Whilst I agree that it should have been electrified alongside the final bits that would allow Morpeth services to run as electrics (currently can’t now for reasons I’ve stated on other threads) I am also totally aware due to funding decisions that if it was a case of an electrified Northumberland Line or northing then sadly the politicians would pick nothing and we wouldn’t be having this conversation

To use 350s you’d have to lengthen its current platform (platform 5) at Newcastle by about 11 metres and you couldn’t double stack on top of the Morpeth in platform 1 which sometimes happens (using 323s there’d be no issues). Using platform 7 is an option but the Middlesbrough arrivals prefer to use that as they can use the line which doesn’t conflict with others. Again it’s possible but you see the speed it’s taking to extend platform 8 to accommodate arrivals from the west. The speed of the unit for the Northumberland Line really doesn’t matter as it would only effect Manors to Benton Junction and even then northbound you’re slowing after Heaton depot as the junction is approach controlled and quite often you have to wait for a southbound LNER. Southbound isn’t that much better

Generally I think the amount of overcrowding is slightly exaggerated. It’s a couple of trains on the morning and evenings alongside football traffic on a Saturday. The latter could be helped if the 30 min frequency ran later into the evening especially to cater for match traffic

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

They should have electrified it, made plans to get some of the 350/2's in.

How much do you think the electrification that you suggest would cost and what time period do you think that this would take?

 

[zwk500]

They should have electrified it, made plans to get some of the 350/2's in. That way its removing slower 70-90mph trains off a busy section of ECML whilst guarenteeing 4 car services to Ashington, Morpeth & Chathill.

In an ideal world of limitless money, yes. However as others have pointed out, if you went 'all or nothing' then you'd have got nothing.

Getting the line open and running, and passengers on board, was definitely the priority. Electrification can follow later. There's also the option of BEMUs.