Newbiggin railway station

[A S Leib]

Plans to extend the Northumberland Line to Newbiggin confirmed to be under consideration

Leading figures on both sides of the political divide have outlined their hopes of extending the Northumberland Line past Ashington.

The £300 million railway is set to open to passengers for the first time since the 1960s on Sunday. Despite the fact that just two of the six stations will be in operation, the leader of Northumberland County Council and the North East mayor have both revealed they would like to see the railway go even further.

Would an extension from Ashington to Newbiggin need any more trains / drivers, and could it be done without closing the rest of the (delayed) line frequently or for long? At the very least this Sunday's timetable has Ashington arrivals having a turnaround of around five minutes, which probably wouldn't be enough to get to Newbiggin and back.

 

[omnicity4659]

I could see Ashington station closing briefly to allow them to create a loop.

I’d imagine that the line east of Third House Farm would need upgraded to Network Rail standards as it’s currently owned by Lynemouth Power and is nothing more than a pair of tracks with some dubious desire footpath crossings.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It is now 60 years since total closure took place on 2nd November 1964 and much could have happened to the condition of the line in that period if not attended to.

 

[Snex]

Let's be honest there's not going to be any expansion any time soon. There is however a council election in 5 months time...

You'd need an extra train though for any extension, it's tight enough as it is, timings wise.

 

[swt_passenger]

It is now 60 years since total closure took place on 2nd November 1964 and much could have happened to the condition of the line in that period if not attended to.

It’s an unsignalled industrial siding from a relatively short distance beyond the current station. Will require full resignalling, perhaps some doubling if the passenger and freight services to Lynemouth need to completely avoid each other, additional S&C at Ashington to form a down loop, maybe even an up platform at Ashington?

The subject of a Newbiggin extension has of course been raised a few times in the original infrastructure thread, I don’t think anyone ever expected it to happen very quickly.

 

[hacman]

It's absolutely something that should be looked into ASAP, as adding a station at Woodhorn and then one for Newbiggin would offer a substantial increase in the overall utility of the line. Ideally, once the rest of the line is open we can look at the possibility of stations at Seghill and maybe an infill station to serve the south of Ashington and the industrial area there too!

As others have mentioned the existing right of way would need upgrading, and the short section from just beyond the A189 to Newbiggin proper would need full reinstatement; though it's not too large of a project that getting funding and support would be insurmountable.

Extra rolling stock would be needed, but Northern is about to undergo a procurement for starting to replace some of the earlier 150/156/158 fleet so it would tie in nicely with that - either in terms of 158s being freed up from elsewhere, or if the region is lucky enough to get something more than castoffs from elsewhere it can be factored into the purchase or taken up as an option.

 

[Meerkat]

Newbiggin is a pretty small place for an expensive extension to go to. The station is either going to be too far from the front, or a contentious one on green space with expensive crossing issues including a school (that would surely have to be a bridge).
Is the hospital a big enough traffic generator and near enough to a prospective Woodhorn station?

 

[danielnez1]

Hopefully Seghill will be re-considered as well.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Hopefully Seghill will be re-considered as well.

A thread about the Seghill Railway has recently been started on the "historic" forum.

 

[MarkyT]

Newbiggin is a pretty small place for an expensive extension to go to. The station is either going to be too far from the front, or a contentious one on green space with expensive crossing issues including a school (that would surely have to be a bridge).
Is the hospital a big enough traffic generator and near enough to a prospective Woodhorn station?

I'd use a low embankment across the green next to Central Parkway, high enough to punch through low underbridges for cycle and pedestrian routes where desired. Woodhorn has a museum & country park as well as the hospital and could be well connected to the local road network. There are existing housing estates nearby that might be connected to a station by improved active travel routes along with new developments in the area.

Current turnround at Ashington is 7m, definitely not enough for a 5 mile round trip extension serving 2 additional stations. The 30 minute interval service trains pass at Benton on the short double track section of the branch between the mainline at Benton S Jn and Benton E Jn, not anywhere on the much longer double track branch section further north. This is hard-wired into a service using two dedicated trains as they also have a short ~10m turnround at Newcastle Central. A 20m interval service (with an extra train on the circuit clearly) might fit better, passing on the mainline segment and on the double track through the Blyth area, allowing some of the few minutes added for awaiting the single line and pathing allowances here and there en route to be removed and possibly creating enough margin at the terminus for the extension.

 

[A S Leib]

Woodhorn has a museum & country park as well as the hospital

Of course a hospital is the sort of place you'd generally want as close to transport links as possible, but I think just putting in a new pedestrian path to cut off a 20-minute diversion via

 

[danielnez1]

It's absolutely something that should be looked into ASAP, as adding a station at Woodhorn and then one for Newbiggin would offer a substantial increase in the overall utility of the line. Ideally, once the rest of the line is open we can look at the possibility of stations at Seghill and maybe an infill station to serve the south of Ashington and the industrial area there too!

As others have mentioned the existing right of way would need upgrading, and the short section from just beyond the A189 to Newbiggin proper would need full reinstatement; though it's not too large of a project that getting funding and support would be insurmountable.

Extra rolling stock would be needed, but Northern is about to undergo a procurement for starting to replace some of the earlier 150/156/158 fleet so it would tie in nicely with that - either in terms of 158s being freed up from elsewhere, or if the region is lucky enough to get something more than castoffs from elsewhere it can be factored into the purchase or taken up as an option.

I will go out on a limb and say something like the Class 150 (with their 1/3 and 2/3 door layouts) would have been more suitable, due to the type of service the line will eventually have (and hopefully more stations too).

A new fleet of trains with the 1/3 and 2/3 door layout (or similar), possibly bi/tri-mode (as electrification would definitely be kicked into the long grass) would be ideal IMHO.

 

[Northern158170]

Unfortunately no class 150s at Heaton. Only at Newton Heath and Neville Hill I believe. Only alternative is the class 156

Eventually the new fleet of trains will hopefully be ordered, also hopefully having the 1/3 2/3 doors and even more hopefully those coming within miles of Newcastle

 

[danielnez1]

Unfortunately no class 150s at Heaton. Only at Newton Heath and Neville Hill I believe. Only alternative is the class 156

Eventually the new fleet of trains will hopefully be ordered, also hopefully having the 1/3 2/3 doors and even more hopefully those coming within miles of Newcastle

AFIK the Class 150 is also banned around Hartlepool due to gauging issues, so would limit their usefulness for Heaton. The same would probably apply with the 769s (which is probably a good thing).

 

[Killingworth]

Newbiggin-by-the-Sea is becoming a desirable location thanks to its south-east facing beach, former mining history largely behind it - at Woodhorn (Colliery Mining) Museum. A railway would be used, but how much and at what cost?

It's only a little over 3 miles from Ashington and the first 2 miles would be on the Lynemouth line. Although the line of the old railway into the town has not been built over restoration would not be without challenges - check map and walk along the Central Parkway that now occupies that route. A junction with the mineral line today may not easily line up.

In Ashington, yes, two through platforms could probably be added. But see below for potential practical difficulties regarding access, train lengths and, of course, costs.

 

[danielnez1]

Newbiggin-by-the-Sea is becoming a desirable location thanks to its south-east facing beach, former mining history largely behind it - at Woodhorn (Colliery Mining) Museum. A railway would be used, but how much and at what cost?

It's only a little over 3 miles from Ashington and the first 2 miles would be on the Lynemouth line. Although the line of the old railway into the town has not been built over restoration would not be without challenges - check map and walk along the Central Parkway that now occupies that route. A junction with the mineral line today may not easily line up.

In Ashington, yes, two through platforms could probably be added. But see below for potential practical difficulties regarding access, train lengths and, of course, costs.

View attachment 171065

Indeed, that was incredibly short sighted IMHO.

 

[MarkyT]

Newbiggin-by-the-Sea is becoming a desirable location thanks to its south-east facing beach, former mining history largely behind it - at Woodhorn (Colliery Mining) Museum. A railway would be used, but how much and at what cost?

It's only a little over 3 miles from Ashington and the first 2 miles would be on the Lynemouth line. Although the line of the old railway into the town has not been built over restoration would not be without challenges - check map and walk along the Central Parkway that now occupies that route. A junction with the mineral line today may not easily line up.

In Ashington, yes, two through platforms could probably be added. But see below for potential practical difficulties regarding access, train lengths and, of course, costs.

Indeed, that was incredibly short sighted IMHO.

Here's a layout idea with separate single lines beyond Ashington:

 

[danielnez1]

Here's a layout idea with separate single lines beyond Ashington:
View attachment 171068

I still can't understand why they did not re-instate/rebuild the Northbound platform. Mind you, the folks at NCC thought Seghill was in Tyne & Wear (it is not), so "not their issue", didn't give me a lot of faith

 

[hacman]

Here's a layout idea with separate single lines beyond Ashington:
View attachment 171068

This is what would make the most sense!

 

[swt_passenger]

I still can't understand why they did not re-instate/rebuild the Northbound platform. Mind you, the folks at NCC thought Seghill was in Tyne & Wear (it is not), so "not their issue", didn't give me a lot of faith

They explained this in one of the consultations. It was to avoid the potential problem of a freight towards Lynemouth being blocked by a passenger unit sitting at the down platform during its layover between arrival and departure. The original scheme did reinstate the down platform, but also installed a reversing siding beyond the road bridge on the disused track bed towards Butterwell.

Since then of course the shopping centre alongside the down platform is to be completely redeveloped. It‘s possible this helped with the decision to get the station away from the demolition site, the superseded scheme would have installed the same amount of S&C, just in a slightly different location.

Also, they’ve already confirmed that a through service would not use the original disused platform, the new platform line would become a loop. I recall that the source of this statement is linked somewhere in the main thread.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Since then of course the shopping centre alongside the down platform is to be completely redeveloped. It‘s possible this helped with the decision to get the station away from the demolition site, the superseded scheme would have installed the same amount of S&C, just in a slightly different location.

Also, they’ve already confirmed that a through service would not use the original disused platform, the new platform line would become a loop. I recall that the source of this statement is linked somewhere in the main thread.

Were there ever provisional costing figures put forward that would show the costs of such a new station and associated requirements required in the consultation period?

 

[swt_passenger]

Were there ever provisional costing figures put forward that would show the costs of such a new station and associated requirements required in the consultation period?

I haven’t ever seen any, but then I’ve never searched through anything other than the planning applications.

 

[Killingworth]

Were there ever provisional costing figures put forward that would show the costs of such a new station and associated requirements required in the consultation period?

Getting it to Ashington was a hard enough slog even though Newbiggin wouldn't have cost a large percentage more. How much more has it finally cost than the originally costed expectations? Time to take stock before going those extra 3 miles.

 

[Tetchytyke]

ind you, the folks at NCC thought Seghill was in Tyne & Wear (it is not), so "not their issue", didn't give me a lot of faith

Depends what you mean by Seghill. The village and the level crossing is not in Tyne and Wear but any sensible location for the station probably would be- the boundary is roughly where the double-track section starts to the south of the level crossing.

How much more has it finally cost than the originally costed expectations? Time to take stock before going those extra 3 miles.

You keep mentioning this as though it is some sort of gotcha. We've had three years of 20%+ annual inflation in construction costs just since 2022. What the line eventually cost is entirely in line with that inflation.

That said, I'd say a better use of resources would be to link the railway line tickets into the multi-operator bus/Metro tickets. It's a short bus ride from Ashington to Newbiggin.

 

[Killingworth]

You keep mentioning this as though it is some sort of gotcha. We've had three years of 20%+ annual inflation in construction costs just since 2022. What the line eventually cost is entirely in line with that inflation.

That said, I'd say a better use of resources would be to link the railway line tickets into the multi-operator bus/Metro tickets. It's a short bus ride from Ashington to Newbiggin.

I'm not privy to all the costings produced to finally get this project off the ground. Having watched other projects proceed with necessary additional work I'd be very surprised if all the delays for that here haven't added significant extra costs.

However I'd have wanted to go on to Newbiggin in the first place but understand why that didn't happen. That not being possible in the near future I hope the alignment is preserved for the future.

It is a short bus ride although it remains to be seen how many interchanges there may be. I'd certainly agree that bus and train interchanges should be encouraged as much as possible and ticketing is a major part of that. How convenient the bus and rail stations are for each other in Ashington needs the oipinion of actual local users and for other ongoing destinations.

 

[Tetchytyke]

How convenient the bus and rail stations are for each other in Ashington needs the oipinion of actual local users and for other ongoing destinations.

It’s not as good as it could be because the station is on the wrong side of the tracks, but it’s only about a ten minute walk through the town centre to the bus station.

 

[Meerkat]

I'd use a low embankment across the green next to Central Parkway, high enough to punch through low underbridges for cycle and pedestrian routes where desired. Woodhorn has a museum & country park as well as the hospital and could be well connected to the local road network. There are existing housing estates nearby that might be connected to a station by improved active travel routes along with new developments in the area.

An embankment will be unpopular on visual grounds, need more land, and means you have to build the terminal station up high adding to the cost.
Where would Woodhorn go? If it goes at the west end of the of the colliery site then it is at ground level but needs a footbridge and parking is an issue (unless you can use the colliery car park, but then that is some way from the road), if it goes to the east then it is better as a parkway for the area to the north but is elevated and further from the hospital.
It just looks more expensive than the demand could justify, unless much new housing is built and the hospital is a big enough draw (and close enough to be better than a bus)

 

[MarkyT]

An embankment will be unpopular on visual grounds, need more land, and means you have to build the terminal station up high adding to the cost.

Good point, which is why I suggest it is as low as possible, for as short a length as possible, ideally about 2 to 3m above ground. Paths passing under may still need to dip slightly below surrounding land. Alternatively the paths might be sunk lower to be fully subterranean under a ground level railway. That would need longer ramps and subways are unpopular (often due to poor design). Big ramped footbridges are often the worst option for visual obtrusion with the height difference required and sometimes require a very long walk for pedestrians. Drainage can be assisted by railways being raised slightly above general ground level.

Where would Woodhorn go? If it goes at the west end of the of the colliery site then it is at ground level but needs a footbridge and parking is an issue (unless you can use the colliery car park, but then that is some way from the road), if it goes to the east then it is better as a parkway for the area to the north but is elevated and further from the hospital.

It just looks more expensive than the demand could justify, unless much new housing is built and the hospital is a big enough draw (and close enough to be better than a bus)

Here's a potential site. Straight track, albeit on a gradient. Road access onto an existing roundabout. Parking (blue) hidden in woodland. Foot/cycle access via pink tracks, including new footbridge(or underpass) across railway to museum and country park. Note there is what looks like an informal pedestrian crossing in this vicinity today that will need some intervention with higher rail traffic levels.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Good point, which is why I suggest it is as low as possible, for as short a length as possible, ideally about 2 to 3m above ground. Paths passing under may still need to dip slightly below surrounding land. Alternatively the paths might be sunk lower to be fully subterranean under a ground level railway
View attachment 171141

The footpaths that you mention. Would they be safe from flooding at times of heavy rainfall?

 

[MarkyT]

The footpaths that you mention. Would they be safe from flooding at times of heavy rainfall?

Suitable drainage, including pumping if necessary, would need to be considered in a detailed design.

I still can't understand why they did not re-instate/rebuild the Northbound platform.

They explained this in one of the consultations. It was to avoid the potential problem of a freight towards Lynemouth being blocked by a passenger unit sitting at the down platform during its layover between arrival and departure. The original scheme did reinstate the down platform, but also installed a reversing siding beyond the road bridge on the disused track bed towards Butterwell.

Since then of course the shopping centre alongside the down platform is to be completely redeveloped. It‘s possible this helped with the decision to get the station away from the demolition site, the superseded scheme would have installed the same amount of S&C, just in a slightly different location.

Also, they’ve already confirmed that a through service would not use the original disused platform, the new platform line would become a loop. I recall that the source of this statement is linked somewhere in the main thread.

The new platform was undoubtedly more easily built set back from the nearest working line by a track interval. That probably allowed a safe 'fenced green zone' to be set up for uninterrupted working through much of the construction period, only affecting rail traffic when the track changes were made.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Dec 2024 ==

Here's a simplified version of my layout suggestion. Using an additional crossover to the south of Ashington, this variant routes Newbiggin passenger trains in both direction via the reinstated up side platform, leaving the current platform as a bay for short turning peak extras and excursions or storing spare, failed stock and engineering vehicles. The first step would be to single the freight line, thus diverting traffic away from the former up track so construction can be carried out safely in a fenced green zone.