Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
I cannot imagine for a moment that "half one way and half the other" would be introduced. 3tph each way may just be acceptable to Washington N & S etc. but not on the existing Pelaw-Sunderland-South Hylton line considering the population that line serves...
I cannot imagine for a moment that "half one way and half the other" would be introduced. 3tph each way may just be acceptable to Washington N & S etc. but not on the existing Pelaw-Sunderland-South Hylton line considering the population that line serves...
That being the case (and I agree it would be politically unviable to reduce frequency at least between Pelaw and Sunderland), this essentially leaves two options
Either the new service will need to run through Newcastle to a turn back location north of the city centre, or it would have to run as an extension of the existing South Hylton services terminating at Pelaw, with Newcastle-Washington journeys essentially requiring a change there.
It would depend how long it takes to go around the new loop but the stations from Seaburn through to Pallion might not notice much difference, being accessible from both directions. I'd be interested to see proposed services and timings either way.
I guess you need extra trains and an additional “line” that runs from North of Newcastle city centre (Monkseaton or Regent Centre maybe)? That extra line probably needs to terminate somewhere though (Sunderland or Park Lane maybe).
I think turfing people off at Pelaw while simpler would not be politically popular.
That helps you bring back peak trains too, with the added benefit of them running all day with additional capacity in the core.
Is it just me or is the plan for everything south of ”Washington South“ a bit, pointless? With an expensive, listed viaduct to restore, a new stretch of line containing no stations and a rebuild of South Hylton station to pay for I can’t see how it would justify itself?
Is it just me or is the plan for everything south of ”Washington South“ a bit, pointless? With an expensive, listed viaduct to restore, a new stretch of line containing no stations and a rebuild of South Hylton station to pay for I can’t see how it would justify itself?
Is it just me or is the plan for everything south of ”Washington South“ a bit, pointless? With an expensive, listed viaduct to restore, a new stretch of line containing no stations and a rebuild of South Hylton station to pay for I can’t see how it would justify itself?
I don’t disagree that there’s probably *some* flow of Washington residents into and out of Sunderland on a daily basis but given how little impact this line has on the centre of Washington I really can’t see the economic case winning over, say, improved bus services which can go right into where people actually live.
I’m assuming Nexus will publish the cost benefit analysis as part of the business case, it’ll be interesting for sure to see the numbers.
Very few in my opinion, and nobody is producing the data to counter that view yet.
Passenger flow follows economic drivers not governance boundaries and the vast majority of the traffic will be north from Washington.
The existing and historical low passenger numbers on the line from Park Lane and the old heavy rail service are in line with my view.
Are there multiple heavily used bus services or cars on congested roads serving this flow now? I would suggest not, and indeed any passenger flow could represent abstraction from the existing (my old commute would saving a few minutes).
The loop south of Washington represents most of the cost in both land acquisition and engineering through very low population density and little potential for growth. It shouldn’t be on the agenda.
Very few in my opinion and nobody is producing the data to counter that view yet. Passenger flow follows economic drivers not governance boundaries and the vast majority of the traffic will be north from Washington. The existing and historical low passenger numbers on the line from Park Lane and the old heavy rail service are in line with my view. Are there multiple heavily used bus services or cars on congested roads serving this flow now? I would suggest not and indeed any passenger flow could represent abstraction from the existing (my old commute would saving a few minutes).
The loop south of Washington represents most of the cost in both land acquisition and engineering through very low population density and little potential for growth. It shouldn’t be on the agenda.
I suspect there will end up being a political angle to all this, as in it could become politically controversial if Washington gets a link to Tyneside (ie Newcastle) but not to Wearside (Sunderland).
The distance from Washington to South Hylton is very small and the alignment is intact and almost all there, unfortunate that it’s all suddenly got more complex than it really needed to be.
I don’t think losing woodland or a bridleway should be justification for substantially increasing construction costs, if that indeed is the case. I can see some justification in avoiding level crossings.
I agree, there’s also the cost of an A19 underpass, land acquisition, re-routing roads in South Hylton, remodelled station, an entirely new SE curve off the viaduct and works to the Victoria viaduct itself.
It’s worth looking on a map to see how few live in the area west of the A19 and the figures for ridership from South Hylton onwards to Sunderland which are low. There’s also data on commuting patterns by all modes which doesn’t support the loop.
If Nexus have the data, that’s fair enough. but it’s not forthcoming.
Politics and parochialism may well be at play, and happy to be shown to be incorrect as a user and enthusiast for Metro.
I guess you need extra trains and an additional “line” that runs from North of Newcastle city centre (Monkseaton or Regent Centre maybe)? That extra line probably needs to terminate somewhere though (Sunderland or Park Lane maybe).
I think turfing people off at Pelaw while simpler would not be politically popular.
That helps you bring back peak trains too, with the added benefit of them running all day with additional capacity in the core.
If changing at Pelaw in undesirable, then it would essentially have to be an extra 6tph through the city centre, assuming a standard 6tph service. A new bay platform at Benton (think there’s some empty land on the inbound side there) would work fairly well, possibly with the services extended to Monkseaton at peak times?
Could someone please point me in the direction of the document which realistically lists the projected additional passenger numbers for this billion pound project?
This is pretty much why it makes sense; the loop provides timely transport from Sunderland and Newcastle and ultimately forms a greater connection for jobs.
The chances are, it'll allow Washington as an area to expand in housing and employment opportunities - this is also a point made in the Washington case.
It is a costly endeavour, but should pay off economically, especially when compared with any other reasonable Metro extensions.
This is pretty much why it makes sense; the loop provides timely transport from Sunderland and Newcastle and ultimately forms a greater connection for jobs. Chances are, it'll allow Washington as an area to expand in housing and employment opportunities - this is also a point made in the Washington case. It is a costly endeavour but should pay off economically, especially when compared with any other reasonable Metro extensions.
But nobody’s arguing that the good people of Washington shouldn’t have good public transport links to Sunderland (and vice versa). The real question is whether this hugely expensive proposal is the most cost effective way of doing it.
In the final business case I’d really like to see a comparison with other modal options, such as improved bus services (maybe even a Bee Network-style solution for the region).
I've also been wondering what the proposal is for actual service.
It would be a little more expensive, but I can see merit having a branch to Station Road Penshaw, terminating the Green Line services there, and sending the Washington services through to Sunderland, with a turnback wherever it can fit north of Sunderland station, potentially around Stadium of Light.
I don't know capacity of the network up there, but I'd then run a 'new line' from either the Airport or Regent Centre turnback to St Peter's/Stadium of Light via Washington.
But nobody’s arguing that the good people of Washington shouldn’t have good public transport links to Sunderland (and vice versa). The real question is whether this hugely expensive proposal is the most cost effective way of doing it.
In the final business case I’d really like to see a comparison with other modal options, such as improved bus services (maybe even a Bee Network-style solution for the region).
In the final business case I’d really like to see a comparison with other modal options, such as improved bus services (maybe even a Bee Network-style solution for the region).
I think the Washington South - South Hylton rail connection is a questionable commitment; especially given the work required to Victoria Bridge, the new alignment on the south bank of the Wear and the disruption it'll cause getting it under the A19; but it must be said that the 56 bus between Newcastle, Washington and Sunderland has gone from strength to strength over the past twenty years or so, to the extent that going beyond the current double decker every twelve minutes probably does suggest that a rail solution might be pragmatic.
It's quite the turnaround when you consider that the Sunderland Metro extension in 2002 resulted in the rapid removal of the competing Go Ahead X64 express bus service from Newcastle, though serving different local markets to the 56, and there'd still be demand for a local service between Washington and Sunderland via Hylton.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It would depend how long it takes to go around the new loop but the stations from Seaburn through to Pallion might not notice much difference, being accessible from both directions. I'd be interested to see proposed services and timings either way.
From Seaburn, and I suspect the other two stations north of the river, I'm reasonably confident we wouldn't consider going round via Washington. If passengers from the likes of Millfield, Pallion and, certainly, South Hylton might consider the route via Washington to be faster, though, then that might free up some room on a reduced frequency of Metros on the Durham Coast route. Though I suspect not much.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I could see this being descoped to a Pelaw - Washington South extension for cost reasons in the coming years, to be fair - Maybe running to Benton at the North End if that turnaround siding is still available.
In an ideal world, I'd consider connecting that up to the oversubscribed Ashington heavy rail service to be a greater priority than establishing a Wear loop to match the Tyne one, personally. Surely a new link at Northumberland Park and electrification of an existing operational formation largely on the level would be cheaper than the engineering proposed south of Washington?
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.
Look at HS2 from the sky. The construction space is significantly wider than the alignment. So yes, the woodlands either side of the alignment would be destroyed.
Bus services between Newcastle, Gateshead, and Washington, and between Heworth and Washington, are already about as good as you’re ever going to get them.
There’s a limited stop express bus from Washington to Newcastle every 12 minutes. Trouble is, it takes 40 minutes. Which is why Go North East have cut the frequency down from every 10 minutes. Similar with the 4 to Heworth and the 56 too.
Look at HS2 from the sky. The construction space is significantly wider than the alignment. So yes, the woodlands either side of the alignment would be destroyed.
That's a fair point to some extent, but I would imagine the land take on either side of reconstructing a disused trackbed to around 50mph standard would be an order of magnitude less than for a completely new alignment engineered for 200mph+ and for which the majority is at a different level to the existing land.
Very few in my opinion, and nobody is producing the data to counter that view yet.
Passenger flow follows economic drivers not governance boundaries and the vast majority of the traffic will be north from Washington.
The existing and historical low passenger numbers on the line from Park Lane and the old heavy rail service are in line with my view.
Are there multiple heavily used bus services or cars on congested roads serving this flow now? I would suggest not, and indeed any passenger flow could represent abstraction from the existing (my old commute would saving a few minutes).
The loop south of Washington represents most of the cost in both land acquisition and engineering through very low population density and little potential for growth. It shouldn’t be on the agenda.
The 56 that runs between Sunderland and Newcastle straight over the Leamside at the proposed Washington North Station is a 12 minute double decker service that runs 23 hours of the day 7 days a week, the only service in the North East of England to run that many hours of the day 7 days a week. But sure, nobody would want to use a metro that goes that way.
Indeed the 56 does run hourly overnight and frequently by day but it also runs north of the Wear serving the areas and industry along Wessington Way/IAMP and it’s more heavily loaded on the leg from Newcastle to Washington rather than Washington to Sunderland in my experience. That service would still be needed as obviously that flow is not served by the loop. The question needing to be answered is how many passengers travel from Washington to Sunderland centre or to points on the route from South Hylton to the centre.
I commuted south of the Wear through Washington at times and loadings are light on the services there such as the 2, the X1 being changed to serve points south rather than along the Wear to Sunderland centre several years ago.
I am not saying “nobody” travels just that passenger flow is “few” and not in the realm of needing mass transit ie not in the millions. I am pretty sure there would be high numbers travelling north from Washington. If still commuting I would use the Metro from Gateshead via Washington but that would be abstraction since I would normally have done the same commute on Metro via Sunderland centre.
There is an old document on commuting patterns to areas of employment in Tyne and Wear which is worth a look but Nexus really should be providing new data to the public to justify such a major project as then we wouldn’t need to speculate.
It's not about Sunderland itself, it is about the intermediate stations. The system does need the existing capacity at Stadium of Light to Fellgate; halving it to 3tph would be disastrous.
If they can't afford a 5tph or 6tph service on the Washington line then they can't afford the Washington line.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
