Tyne and Wear Metro - Washington loop extension

[deanmachine]

I don't even think the next step should be heavy rail. It should be a metro connection to Durham on the Leamside, but that would require a new crossing over the Wear and a new platform in Durham, would be costly, but that's what should happen imo.

 

[Economic505]

I'm a little bit worried that this project has been rushed out without any plan. Only a few weeks ago the mayor was announcing a few million for a business case/assessment. Now we're hearing it's going ahead. Surely the background work has not been done and I really feel like we're going to see some really nasty surprises going ahead.

This hasn’t been rushed. In fact this idea is decades old . It’s a good start to bring Washington onto the network and also to bring some of the Leamside line back into use. Some people have questioned why it’s a loop. Such a concept is hardly new. We have a loop on the yellow line and also the Circle line in London. Passengers aren’t stupid, they’ll figure it out.

 

[D869]

I don't even think the next step should be heavy rail. It should be a metro connection to Durham on the Leamside, but that would require a new crossing over the Wear and a new platform in Durham, would be costly, but that's what should happen imo.

I agree a reopened Leamside line should be light rail only. Re crossing the River Wear, Belmont Viaduct is still there, waiting to be re-used. A new rail bridge over or under the A1(M) would be needed, just north of junction 62, preferably at right angles.

 

[MetroTyler]

I'm a little bit worried that this project has been rushed out without any plan. Only a few weeks ago the mayor was announcing a few million for a business case/assessment. Now we're hearing it's going ahead. Surely the background work has not been done and I really feel like we're going to see some really nasty surprises going ahead.

Isn't this what Arup are appointed to figure out?

 

[SeanG]

I think the concept of 'light rail' and 'heavy rail' should be forgotten. Metro has run on Network Rail now for over 20 years, and if you look to Switzerland, Germany etc., the two types of system are very blurred. Furthermore the new Metro rolling stock that is currently being delivered is similar to the Merseyrail 'heavy rail'.

 

[Snex]

I think the concept of 'light rail' and 'heavy rail' should be forgotten. Metro has run on Network Rail now for over 20 years, and if you look to Switzerland, Germany etc., the two types of system are very blurred. Furthermore the new Metro rolling stock that is currently being delivered is similar to the Merseyrail 'heavy rail'.

The 1500v overhead wires would say otherwise though which is a massive stumbling block if they want to electrify any lines in the North East which if the Leamside ever got built, wouldn't be the worst line since it's an ECML diversion.

 

[danielnez1]

The 1500v overhead wires would say otherwise though which is a massive stumbling block if they want to electrify any lines in the North East which if the Leamside ever got built, wouldn't be the worst line since it's an ECML diversion.

It is a shame the idea of dula voltage capability of the 555s was dropped, as in this situation, it could have allowed for the Leamside (and the Sunderland line) to be converted to 25kV in the future.

 

[Andymo]

They will not be electrified within the lifespan of the 555s and there are plenty of bimodes for diversionary operation.

 

[DanNCL]

The 1500v overhead wires would say otherwise though which is a massive stumbling block if they want to electrify any lines in the North East which if the Leamside ever got built, wouldn't be the worst line since it's an ECML diversion.

1500v DC is used on almost the entire Dutch mainline network. It isn’t something that prevents Metro from being heavy rail.

They will not be electrified within the lifespan of the 555s and there are plenty of bimodes for diversionary operation.

It’s far too early to tell what may or may not be electrified in 2060, which is roughly when the 555s are expected to last until.

 

[alavery04]

I was having a think the other day and thought, (mind me I’m no engineer so I could be totally talking out my backside) would it not be possible to convert them to third rail DC? Or even dual voltage to keep them under wires through the core and in nexus territory and use third rail on the pelaw to Sunderland/leamside section? Would make it easier to electrify heavy rail in the future.

 

[DanNCL]

I was having a think the other day and thought, (mind me I’m no engineer so I could be totally talking out my backside) would it not be possible to convert them to third rail DC? Or even dual voltage to keep them under wires through the core and in nexus territory and use third rail on the pelaw to Sunderland/leamside section? Would make it easier to electrify heavy rail in the future.

From a technical perspective it's theoretically possible but it wouldn't be easy as it's not something the 555s were designed to accommodate. From a legislative perspective almost certainly not as the ORR aren't keen on new third rail installations.

 

[alavery04]

While I don't want to appear negative as the project would connect more of the region, it isn't perfect. I did think the reopening of the Leamside offered more economic potential if done right. At the moment there appears to be no station between South Hylton and Washington by turning straight onto the Victoria viaduct missing a whole load of communities in the Coalfields region - imagine buses connecting from Houghton , Hetton, Penshaw and further afield to open faster travel. I know if the Leamside line is the next step they will be potentially served but a stub to Penshaw, Biddick Woods, Shiney Row could create a feeder interchange and avoid an expensive connection to the Victoria Viaduct. Kevin

My thoughts exactly, missing out 3 major possible stops with vital bus routes connecting the several communities of washington that won’t necessarily benefit from the metro connection aswell as buses to and from chester le street, peterlee, the south of Sunderland around doxford park etc. I personally would have had it stop at wardley aswell, instead of a stop called Washington north it could be a generic washington built to heavy rail standards for future heavy rail through the area. There would be a change to get to Sunderland but i think it would be worth it to open up those extra connections. I mean the point of a light rail is to connect the small towns and villages along the way as it wouldn’t be viable for a heavy rail to stop every minute or so between penshaw and fence houses. I don’t know, I just think it’s a missed opportunity.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jun 2025 ==

From a technical perspective it's theoretically possible but it wouldn't be easy as it's not something the 555s were designed to accommodate. From a legislative perspective almost certainly not as the ORR aren't keen on new third rail installations.

Yeah, I’ve heard about that. Surely for a metro/light rail it wouldn’t be too big of an issue? Also with regards to the 555s thinking about it the 319s were never made to accommodate an engine yet they worked-ish but saying that look where they are now . It would definitely be helpful and I think considering the country’s considering electrifying the full network by 2050 it will be an obstacle that will be overcome eventually.

 

[Economic505]

My thoughts exactly, missing out 3 major possible stops with vital bus routes connecting the several communities of washington that won’t necessarily benefit from the metro connection aswell as buses to and from chester le street, peterlee, the south of Sunderland around doxford park etc. I personally would have had it stop at wardley aswell, instead of a stop called Washington north it could be a generic washington built to heavy rail standards for future heavy rail through the area. There would be a change to get to Sunderland but i think it would be worth it to open up those extra connections. I mean the point of a light rail is to connect the small towns and villages along the way as it wouldn’t be viable for a heavy rail to stop every minute or so between penshaw and fence houses. I don’t know, I just think it’s a missed opportunity.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jun 2025 ==


Yeah, I’ve heard about that. Surely for a metro/light rail it wouldn’t be too big of an issue? Also with regards to the 555s thinking about it the 319s were never made to accommodate an engine yet they worked-ish but saying that look where they are now . It would definitely be helpful and I think considering the country’s considering electrifying the full network by 2050 it will be an obstacle that will be overcome eventually.

A direct connection between Washington and Sunderland is a key condition.

 

[Snex]

My thoughts exactly, missing out 3 major possible stops with vital bus routes connecting the several communities of washington that won’t necessarily benefit from the metro connection aswell as buses to and from chester le street, peterlee, the south of Sunderland around doxford park etc. I personally would have had it stop at wardley aswell, instead of a stop called Washington north it could be a generic washington built to heavy rail standards for future heavy rail through the area. There would be a change to get to Sunderland but i think it would be worth it to open up those extra connections. I mean the point of a light rail is to connect the small towns and villages along the way as it wouldn’t be viable for a heavy rail to stop every minute or so between penshaw and fence houses. I don’t know, I just think it’s a missed opportunity.

It's the North East. Sunderland would never sign something like that off as it would be Newcastle centric and that's just a big no-no.

Rightfully or wrongfully there's serious parochial issues in the North East.

 

[alavery04]

A direct connection between Washington and Sunderland is a key condition.

Multiple bus routes, connecting sunderland to washington, hopefully with a 10 minute frequency all round it really wouldn’t kill to change and wait the 10 minutes. It’s all about connecting people but yet missing out 3 sizeable communities. Feels like a bit of a missed opportunity. I know the yellow line loops but it starts in one place and ends in another without backing up on itself where the green line will, whether it just runs to heworth or further on so it’s not really comparable.

 

[consettman]

Reopen the 2nd island at Sunderland for Metro trains arriving via Washington / S Hylton, and abandon Metro running on the north end of the proposed loop? Allowing conversion to 25kv and full electrification of the Durham coast line without the 1.5kv problem.

 

[swt_passenger]

Yeah, I’ve heard about that. Surely for a metro/light rail it wouldn’t be too big of an issue?

It’s not the fact that it’s light rail, metro or heavy rail. If top contact third rail is easily accessible to the public or staff it would be considered a shock danger whatever the purpose of the system, as the risks are exactly the same.

 

[5hunter]

The 555 can operate in CFO mode and there is scope to double the battery capacity. Just putting that out there.

 

[John Griffiths]

This hasn’t been rushed. In fact this idea is decades old . It’s a good start to bring Washington onto the network and also to bring some of the Leamside line back into use. Some people have questioned why it’s a loop. Such a concept is hardly new. We have a loop on the yellow line and also the Circle line in London. Passengers aren’t stupid, they’ll figure it out.

That the idea has been knocking around for years doesn't mean that it has been fully thought through and costed. With projects like this - certainly in NE England and probably elsewhere - to here is a good deal of over excitement and donning of rose-tinted spectacles. There does seem to be inordinate haste between Kim McGuinness refloating the idea and the government promising cash. Perhaps I should remind people of the latest iteration of the A1 dualling plan. Money was promised - hurrah! - then, lo and behold, money was withdrawn + boo!

 

[hacman]

The 1500v overhead wires would say otherwise though which is a massive stumbling block if they want to electrify any lines in the North East which if the Leamside ever got built, wouldn't be the worst line since it's an ECML diversion.

From a business case perspective, the Leamside is never getting electrified purely as a diversionary route, especially with the amount of bi-mode units kicking around on LNER services. To make it viable from any other perspective, you'd also need there to be a sudden increase in electrification elsewhere in the region, at a minimum including the Tyne Valley and Durham Coast.

This simply isn't going to happen any time soon, and by that point either the 555s will be getting towards their replacement, in which case early replacement for a smaller part of the fleet would be possible, or the project will be substantial enough that adding 25kV capability to the 555s or procuring a number of new sets with dual voltage would be the way forward.

From a technical perspective it's theoretically possible but it wouldn't be easy as it's not something the 555s were designed to accommodate. From a legislative perspective almost certainly not as the ORR aren't keen on new third rail installations.

It is a shame the idea of dula voltage capability of the 555s was dropped, as in this situation, it could have allowed for the Leamside (and the Sunderland line) to be converted to 25kV in the future.

Stadler could still add this feature if it was needed, either into existing sets with the addition of an extra car, or to new sets built with the capability from the outset. They also have battery capability, which was factored in with exactly this sort of thing in mind.

Bottom contact 3rd rail would be possible and permitted under the various safety regimes, but it would be a very expensive solution to this, and is never going to happen as the alternative options are far more sensible.

 

[James_D]

Aside from how it gets built, its interesting that this scheme will potentially drastically cut the journey times from the Sunderland stations to the West of the city centre, if passengers travel via Washington rather than via Seaburn. From the current 39 minutes from South Hylton to around 25 minutes.

Next step surely would be to adapt the Boldon New Curve to Metro running, to allow a South Shields to Sunderland service/loop, likely onward to Washington, but how do you then get it running then onto South Shields again?

A flyover at Pelaw?
Complicated junction/crossing at the top of the bank at the existing Pelaw junction where the South Shields/Sunderland services currently divert?
Reversing at Pelaw?

Or, if you want to spend a bit more money, at the North end of the Leamside, create a East facing junction adjacent to Wardley, utilising the old alignment of the Pontop and Jarrow Railway, now the Bowes Railway Path. The new route can then rejoin the DCL West of Fellgate station in the area of the B1306 Mill Lane and Monkton Business Park, allowing direct running back to South Shields after Brockley Whins via Boldon West Curve.

 

[The exile]

O

It’s not the fact that it’s light rail, metro or heavy rail. If top contact third rail is easily accessible to the public or staff it would be considered a shock danger whatever the purpose of the system, as the risks are exactly the same.

f course, being brand new it wouldn’t have to be top contact. Still seems like an expensive solution in search of a problem.

 

[matt]

Thread reopened for @jh64 to post an update

 

[jh64]

Latest Metro to Washington public drop-in sessions announced

North East Mayor Kim McGuinness has announced engagement events for local residents to see how the project to bring the Metro to Washington is moving forward.

travelnortheast.uk

A total of 14 public drop-in sessions will be held in September across Washington and the surrounding area, giving local people the opportunity to hear from members of the project team at Nexus about latest progress, as well as being able to provide feedback, and ask questions.

The full list of Metro to Washington public engagement events:

• Tuesday 1 September – 4-6pm: Washington Millennium Centre, Concord
• Saturday 5 September – 1.30pm – 4pm: Washington Arts Centre, Biddick Lane
  
• Monday 7 September – 12.30pm – 4.30pm: Fitzgeralds, Wardley
• Wednesday 9 September – 1.30pm-4pm: Tansy Centre, South Hylton
• Friday 11 September – 1.30pm-4.30pm:Teal Farm Pub
• Saturday 12 September – 11am – 2pm: North East Land, Sea, Air Museum, Washington
  
• Tuesday 15 September – 5.30pm – 7pm: Sunderland College, City Campus
• Wednesday 16 September –10am-1pm: Washington Arts Centre, Biddick Lane
• Saturday 19 September – 10.30am – 1.30pm: The Galleries, Washington
  
• Tuesday 22 September – 5.30pm-7pm: Columbia Community Centre, Washington
• Wednesday 23 September – 10am-12pm: Tansy Centre, South Hylton
• Friday 25 September – 8.30am – 10.30am and 5pm-7pm: Pelaw Metro Station
• Saturday 26 September – 10.30am-1.30pm: The Bridges Shopping Centre, Sunderland

 

[speciallygreen]

BBC: Metro extension plans revealed at public events

Nexus: Latest Metro to Washington proposals unveiled

Nexus has today (Tuesday 1 September 2026) unveiled the latest proposals for the planned extension of the Tyne and Wear Metro to Washington.


In a significant moment for the project, the proposed route and locations of each of the new stations has been published for the first time, as a series of public engagement events get underway.


The proposals outline three new stations – located at Follingsby, Washington North and Washington South – as well as seeing the line cross the River Wear via the Victoria viaduct, travel towards and under the A19, and connect with the current network at South Hylton.


The 13km Metro extension plays a critical role in North East Mayor Kim McGuinness’ vision to transform local transport and create an integrated network spanning the region.


The line is expected to see the first Metro trains running along it in 2033.


The public are invited to find out more and ask questions of the project team at a series of 14 engagement events. This follows similar drop in events in the summer of 2025.


North East Mayor Kim McGuinness, said: “I promised we’d extend the Metro to Washington and now the next stage in that plan is underway – three brand new stations for the first time in 30 years.


“We’re doing this because you told us you want more affordable, publicly-controlled transport across the North East. Now is the time to have your say on how these plans develop.”


Cathy Massarella, Managing Director of Nexus, said: “This is a really significant moment for the Metro to Washington project as the proposed route and station locations are shared publicly for the first time.


“This will be the first new Metro line for 30 years, providing a new route between the cities of Sunderland and Newcastle through Washington.


“We are committed to keeping the public up to date on the plans. A series of 14 public engagement events will now get underway over the coming weeks, giving people the chance to come along, ask questions, and give us their views. We look forward to seeing as many people there as possible.


“If people are struggling to get there in person, there is an also an option to provide feedback online through the Nexus website.


“This will be vital as we shape the plans further, ahead of construction getting underway.”


An outline business case for the project will be submitted to the North East Mayoral Strategic Authority early 2027, which will consider views from the public engagement alongside the outline development. Subject to the relevant approvals, it is hoped that construction would begin in 2030, with the first Metro trains on the new line running from 2033.


Each option for the route has been scored as part of the feasibility study, considering numerous factors with the highest scoring options forming the latest plans.


These options considered possible costs, impact on local residents, the environment and current infrastructure and land surveys. Factors such as connection with bus services and improving pedestrian and cycle access also played a vital role in these proposals – helping to deliver cleaner, safer, more accessible and modern transport options for the region.


Discussions with potentially impacted landowners have already begun as part of the proposals.


Local residents are being encouraged to view the plans in more detail and provide their feedback at a number of drop-in sessions starting from today, or through the Metro to Washington page on the Nexus website.

 

[John R]

I found this from the link in post 54 quite interesting, and is a good example of why infrastructure projects cost so much in the UK in comparison to on the continent:-

Once the Metro route has crossed the Victoria Viaduct, it will run on a new track alignment to the south of Coxgreen Road towards South Hylton. This avoids cutting through ancient woodland, the need for multiple large, intrusive new road bridges and disturbing a large section of a popular local bridleway.

To take the three points in order:-

cutting through ancient woodland

The obvious route would be to continue along the old track alignment through the errr... ancient woodland. So the bit that would be destroyed is not at all ancient.

intrusive new road bridges

Needed because the ORR insist on no new level crossings, even if fully barriered.

disturbing a large section of a popular local bridleway

Which is presumably on the old trackbed? Maybe cheaper and environmentally less damaging to reuse the trackbed, and built a much narrower and less well engineered new bridleway a short distance away from the railway?

 

[A S Leib]

Needed because the ORR insist on no new level crossings, even if fully barriered.

In this case, where I don't think 6 tph in each direction is infeasible, it makes sense, even if I don't think they should necessarily have been rejected on, for example, the Borders Railway.

 

[John R]

In this case, where I don't think 6 tph in each direction is infeasible, it makes sense, even if I don't think they should necessarily have been rejected on, for example, the Borders Railway.

It is an absurdity that it's unacceptable to build a new level crossing on what appear to be relatively lightly used roads, but it's ok to keep crossings such as at Tempsford open, (which has at least 9 trains per hour in each direction running at speeds of up to 125mph), because it never reaches the top of the priority list for funding.

 

[speciallygreen]

In this case, where I don't think 6 tph in each direction is infeasible, it makes sense, even if I don't think they should necessarily have been rejected on, for example, the Borders Railway.

I have a feeling it'll be 3tph in each direction giving 6tph Newcastle to Sunderland with half going each way around the new loop.

 

[Kite159]

I have a feeling it'll be 3tph in each direction giving 6tph Newcastle to Sunderland with half going each way around the new loop.

I would imagine that would go down like a lead balloon for users at the stations between Pelaw & Sunderland going from 5tph (soon to be 6tph) to 3tph.

I still can't help think the project will quietly get shelved on grounds of cost, and replaced with a fast busway.