Ashington, Blyth Tyne - Network Rail commissioned for study

[edwin_m]

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:

I agree with that in general terms. However in this case I think providing a third platform, retaining wall notwithstanding, will be both the cheapest option and the one most compatible with future growth.

 

[JohnCarlson]

I agree with that in general terms. However in this case I think providing a third platform, retaining wall notwithstanding, will be both the cheapest option and the one most compatible with future growth.

I could imagine it being quite a job to install a retaining wall. Several of those houses would be right above the new platform. I am also sure it would be opposed as who would want a platform being built directly next to their house. However it could be done at would probably work out cheaper than installing three or four points east of Northumberland Park, a similar number west of Parmersvile and re arranging the signaling.

But cost aside, bringing the NR trains into the existing Metro Station would have the advantages of not needing to build any platforms, adding more than a mile to the double track section of the B&T, being able to have trains stop at Palmersvile if desired and the existing single freight track between Palmersville and Northumberland Park could be used as a waiting point for freight departing or leaving the ECML Its more passenger friendly as you dont have to change platforms to change trains.
.

The third platform option effectively builds in a long single track section with a station on it regardless of how much of the rest of the line is doubled. It would probably limit the passenger service frequency to half hourly for all time and severely limit the expansion of fright on the southern section of the B&T. I could imagine it would also require some amendments to signaling. Where additional freight might come from is a moot point at the moment but equally when the Metro extension to Sunderland was being planed there were not proposals to have two hundred freight trains a week running out of Tyne Dock and no one had heard of Grand Central.

So could you explain in more detail why the third platform option is most compatible for future growth.

 

[OxtedL]

So could you explain in more detail why the third platform option is most compatible for future growth.

It's more compatible for future growth on the metro, I think is the point. You want to keep things separate as far as possible.

It would probably limit the passenger service frequency to half hourly for all time.

Half hourly would be a good service considering what the line is, but certainly by the time you need more frequent than that you have more money in the benefit cost pot to play with.

 

[edwin_m]

So could you explain in more detail why the third platform option is most compatible for future growth.

Future growth isn't the only criterion when designing something like this. If the scheme is operationally unworkable or costs too much then it won't be built, and the future growth will be zero. While it's for Network Rail to decide (that's the study referred to by the OP) I can think of several reasons to prefer the third platform over shared running with Metro:

First of all the junctions to and from Metro would require three point ends each as a minimum, or more if the third track is kept. With associated signalling this would cost somewhere around £3m. An extra platform on an existing station is likely to be much cheaper than this, even if it needs to be retained.

In fact to avoid trains blocking the Metro service while waiting for a path over the single line, it would probably be necessary to have 1000m or so of double track, for use by ABT trains only, at each end of the shared Metro section. This would add more points and signalling too and raise costs still further, and is more costly than the dynamic loop proposed further north which would allow the Metro section to work operationally as a parallel single line.

Thirdly, some of these trains will be heavy freight with poorer acceleration and braking rates and therefore greater performance risk when sharing track with Metro. This also compromises the reliability of the Metro service, unless the third track is kept for freight use.

Fourthly the incompatibility with any future 25kV electrification as I mentioned previously.

The proposed arrangement with a dynamic loop somewhere around Newsham limits passenger trains to one every 30min with some allowance for freight (I worked up the timetable for an earlier study on this route). Realistically it's unlikely that any greater frequency will be either justifiable or possible given the capacity constraints on the ECML into Newcastle, unless it became a branch of Metro which would cost a lot more and almost certainly be slower into central Newcastle. As someone else has suggested, a higher effective frequency could be possible at some stations if it was ever needed, by running extra services via Morpeth.

 

[JohnCarlson]

Future growth isn't the only criterion when designing something like this. If the scheme is operationally unworkable or costs too much then it won't be built, and the future growth will be zero. While it's for Network Rail to decide (that's the study referred to by the OP) I can think of several reasons to prefer the third platform over shared running with Metro:

First of all the junctions to and from Metro would require three point ends each as a minimum, or more if the third track is kept. With associated signalling this would cost somewhere around £3m. An extra platform on an existing station is likely to be much cheaper than this, even if it needs to be retained.

In fact to avoid trains blocking the Metro service while waiting for a path over the single line, it would probably be necessary to have 1000m or so of double track, for use by ABT trains only, at each end of the shared Metro section. This would add more points and signalling too and raise costs still further, and is more costly than the dynamic loop proposed further north which would allow the Metro section to work operationally as a parallel single line.

Thirdly, some of these trains will be heavy freight with poorer acceleration and braking rates and therefore greater performance risk when sharing track with Metro. This also compromises the reliability of the Metro service, unless the third track is kept for freight use.

Fourthly the incompatibility with any future 25kV electrification as I mentioned previously.

The proposed arrangement with a dynamic loop somewhere around Newsham limits passenger trains to one every 30min with some allowance for freight (I worked up the timetable for an earlier study on this route). Realistically it's unlikely that any greater frequency will be either justifiable or possible given the capacity constraints on the ECML into Newcastle, unless it became a branch of Metro which would cost a lot more and almost certainly be slower into central Newcastle. As someone else has suggested, a higher effective frequency could be possible at some stations if it was ever needed, by running extra services via Morpeth.

I suspect that if the B&T ever gets a passenger service it will use the third platform option at NP as there is not likely to be very much money around for the scheme. The point I am putting forwards though is that costs aside this isn't really the best option which is why I cant understand why you have returned to the subject of cost.

I am not talking in this instance of bringing freight trains onto the Metro tracks nor sending Metro trains up NR tracks nor electrifying any tracks. Just running pacers along Metro tracks from PV to NP. I hope that clarifies things as I know how threads can get.




I did talk of electrifying the line from Ashington to NP but at the national standard and not sending TW Metros up it but national rail trains that would fit into the metro tunnels via a new link west of Byker, But for the avoidance of any doubt as they say in contracts, this is a fantasy for the foreseeable future.

 

[142094]

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.

Unfortunately those ideas just about left Nexus the same time as Mike Parker did.

At the present time I can't see Nexus wanting to allow work to be done at Northumberland Park station which would disrupt Metro services. If the ABT is going to reopen in the next few years to passenger service, either it will be done without a stop at Northumberland Park for a few years, or a separate platform will have to be brought into use.

 

[hacman]

At the present time I can't see Nexus wanting to allow work to be done at Northumberland Park station which would disrupt Metro services. If the ABT is going to reopen in the next few years to passenger service, either it will be done without a stop at Northumberland Park for a few years, or a separate platform will have to be brought into use.

Perhaps for the best though, as completing this as a separate "interchange" project would likely see more ambitious plans with a higher budget allocated, based on what would then be already proven passenger trends, rather than predicted ridership for a new line.

You do have to wonder why the platform at Northumberland Park wasn't build further towards the southern side of the cutting though in readiness for any future development.

Palmersville is a no-go really too, as getting two tracks through would be a very tight squeeze without trying to add even 1 platform to the existing alignment. There's also not really much benefit in placing an interchange there either (I say this as a resident of the area too!).

Although, if track sharing were to be the preferred option between just west of Palmersville and just east of Northumberland Park, I'd say all services might as well stop at both.

Jon

 

[JohnCarlson]

Unfortunately those ideas just about left Nexus the same time as Mike Parker did.

At the present time I can't see Nexus wanting to allow work to be done at Northumberland Park station which would disrupt Metro services. If the ABT is going to reopen in the next few years to passenger service, either it will be done without a stop at Northumberland Park for a few years, or a separate platform will have to be brought into use.

I hope something happens soon anyway. I would guess freight is dropping on the B&T and I would hate the thing to close before a passenger service is reinstated.

 

[OxtedL]

Palmersville is a no-go really too, as getting two tracks through would be a very tight squeeze without trying to add even 1 platform to the existing alignment. There's also not really much benefit in placing an interchange there either (I say this as a resident of the area too!).

I don't think anyone has seriously suggested doubling the NR track beside the metro - surely there's (theoretically) room for a platform attached to the metro side platform there already? Having never been there, I'll happily bow to your knowledge if you say otherwise.

An interchange there would surely be better than no interchange with the metro at all on this stretch if Northumberland Park turns out to be too hard.

 

[142094]

You do have to wonder why the platform at Northumberland Park wasn't build further towards the southern side of the cutting though in readiness for any future development.

Not entirely sure but I wonder if it has anything to do with the shallow mine workings that are in the area - after all, one of those opened up nearby a few years back and stopped the job.

I would guess freight is dropping on the B&T and I would hate the thing to close before a passenger service is reinstated.

Hopefully the sad closure of Alcan has given the project a boost, a do it now or do it never situation. Depending on what happens with the biomass plant at Cambois and if Port of Blyth can expand, freight on the section doesn't look too good for the future.

I don't think anyone has seriously suggested doubling the NR track beside the metro - surely there's (theoretically) room for a platform attached to the metro side platform there already? Having never been there, I'll happily bow to your knowledge if you say otherwise.

I'm sure there is just about room underneath the current road overbridge for a platform. There may even be room further west at Benton Square for a passing loop.

 

[markydh]

The latest agenda for TWITA includes the following: -

The remaining corridors have been studied in further detail, supported by information from two high-level assessments of technical feasibility and projected demand. Work continues on the assessment of these corridors, at this stage the following technologies have been identified as the most appropriate:

Sunderland to Seaham – using joint running technology on the existing Network Rail Durham Coast line.
South Shields- Doxford Park – on-street operation.
Newcastle city centre – west Newcastle – on-street operation.
Pelaw- Washington-South Hylton – part-use of the Leamside rail corridor with a new alignment in the Washington town centre area.
Gateshead town centre – Team Valley – on-street operation.
Gateshead town centre – Metrocentre – on street operation.
Howdon – Cobalt – Northumberland Park – making use of a former railway alignment connecting the two sides of the Metro Coast loop. This route could be extended northwards towards Blyth and Ashington, offering a potential alternative means of access for Blyth & Tyne services to and from central Newcastle.

3.5 Other possibilities have not been examined in detail at this stage but have not been excluded from future consideration; for example, discussions continue at a regional level about the best way to reintroduce passenger trains to the Leamside route, as well as the Ashington Blyth and Tyne corridor referred to above. Metro-style operation could be an option for consideration on these routes, along with other methods of delivery.

 

[danielnez1]

I hope something happens soon anyway.

my gut feeling is that it will happen sooner rather than later. Northumberland County Council will look at various funding options, such as loans etc. to fund it.

 

[JohnCarlson]

The latest agenda for TWITA includes the following: -

All interesting stuff. South Shields to Doxford park would be quite a journey.

I would be curious to know how Shiny Row would be served by any Metro extension.


John

 

[142094]

On street running seems to be where Nexus are going, so I'd expect new rolling stock to be either trams or tram-trains. There doesn't seem to be much appetite for any proper light rail reopenings, and it would be far cheaper to buy off the shelf trams from a European supplier.

 

[TheKnightWho]

On street running seems to be where Nexus are going, so I'd expect new rolling stock to be either trams or tram-trains. There doesn't seem to be much appetite for any proper light rail reopenings, and it would be far cheaper to buy off the shelf trams from a European supplier.

S stock with a pantograph, anyone?

 

[edwin_m]

S stock with a pantograph, anyone?

Probably out of gauge for Metro. Except on the sections where freight was still to run (Benton to Bank Foot) the overhead line was run underneath existing bridges because Metrocars are flat roofed and lower than main line stock. I would imagine S stock is a similar height to main line.

 

[JohnCarlson]

Probably out of gauge for Metro. Except on the sections where freight was still to run (Benton to Bank Foot) the overhead line was run underneath existing bridges because Metrocars are flat roofed and lower than main line stock. I would imagine S stock is a similar height to main line.

How easy would it be to convert all of Metro to the National overhead line standard?

Or would it be impossible in some places?

 

[edwin_m]

Anything's possible, and in fact 1500V to 25kV doesn't seem to need much more in the way of clearance. What would be more difficult would be allowing main line size trains, and if that wasn't done the next generation of Metrocars would still have to be to the reduced height but might also need to fit a 25kV transformer somewhere on board.

 

[142094]

You'd have to change all the overhead wires and the substations as the Metro is 1500v DC whereas the national network is 24kV AC. How easy it is to convert between the two I have no idea, but I can see it being costly.

If you're asking how easy would it be for the loading gauge to be changed, that would be even more costly as a lot of the system is a smaller loading gauge to the national network. Even the Tamper that is used on the system is a miniature version of the one on the mainline.

 

[JohnCarlson]

You'd have to change all the overhead wires and the substations as the Metro is 1500v DC whereas the national network is 15000v AC. How easy it is to convert between the two I have no idea, but I can see it being costly.

If you're asking how easy would it be for the loading gauge to be changed, that would be even more costly as a lot of the system is a smaller loading gauge to the national network. Even the Tamper that is used on the system is a miniature version of the one on the mainline.

Its a pity that they didn't build full sized tunnels but I remember reading somewhere around the tine that it would have taken much more power to drive the drills and time to shift the dirt if the tunnels were to be full sized. At the time the national rail network was contracting anyway.

 

[Chris125]

On street running seems to be where Nexus are going, so I'd expect new rolling stock to be either trams or tram-trains. There doesn't seem to be much appetite for any proper light rail reopenings, and it would be far cheaper to buy off the shelf trams from a European supplier.

Their use on national rail infrastructure would presumably make them 'tram-train', whose design could benefit from the work being done for the Rotherham trial - like those they really ought to be designed for Dual Voltage operation, and being high-floored could even see a joint order with Metrolink?

Chris

 

[142094]

Their use on national rail infrastructure would presumably make them 'tram-train', whose design could benefit from the work being done for the Rotherham trial - like those they really ought to be designed for Dual Voltage operation, and being high-floored could even see a joint order with Metrolink?

Chris

Tram-train would be most logical. I take it that the Metrolink platforms are the same height as heavy rail platforms (seeing as most of their stops were former BR stations?).

 

[edwin_m]

Tram-train would be most logical. I take it that the Metrolink platforms are the same height as heavy rail platforms (seeing as most of their stops were former BR stations?).

Yes. 915mm or 3 feet in old money.

The spec for a Tyne and Wear Metro tram-train would be very similar to one for Greater Manchester, the main difference being the need for 1500V instead of 750V (as well as 25kV).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yes. 915mm or 3 feet in old money.

The spec for a Tyne and Wear Metro tram-train would be very similar to one for Greater Manchester, the main difference being the need for 1500V instead of 750V (as well as 25kV).

I am sure that, on reading some postings on here, those charged with the future expansion of the Greater Manchester tram-train forward proposals/Manchester Metrolink system will be most heartened by them and see a new North-East route corridor opening up in their plans for domination..:roll:

 

[Steve S]

The ABT line joins the East Coast Main Line via the Benton South East Curve.
Infilling and development of the Benton South West Curve was blocked and subsequently purchased by Newcastle Airport as a Metro ECML freight link.
Currently, the Benton North West Curve is under threat as Nexus have removed the siding. The adjacent Benton Triangle, which Nexus own, has been included in the North Tyneside Local Plan Consultation Draft as a site for residential development.
Future generations will have no chance of creating an ABT / Morpeth / Benton circuit using integrated technology if this development takes place.
See Map 14 on page 16 of the Potential Sites Background Paper of the Draft Plan.
All comments need to be submitted to North Tyneside Council by 6th Jan 2014.

 

[Hardcastle]

Lets hope this goes ahead quickly its been talked about long enough & will certainly give the area a long overdue economic boost.

 

[Spaceflower]

Extend the current Morpeth trains to Ashington via Hepscott, reversing at Bedlington. It'd be alot quicker than going via Newsham, wouldn't cause capacity issues and would need less rolling stock.....and probably a whole load of capital investment.