North East ECML cut offs

[Northumbriana]

As per the title:

1. Darlington to somewhere north of Chester Le Street.
2. Killingworth to somewhere north of Widdrington.

Would allow Durham, Chester Le Street, Cramlington, Morpeth, Pegswood and Widdrington stations to have a lot more local trains.

 

[D365]

I am not at all sure what you are proposing.

 

[stevieinselby]

I am not at all sure what you are proposing.

I think they're suggesting bypasses on the ECML, to remove the conflicts between intercity and local services.
Which, sure, if money and resources were no object would be great. But there is zero business case for them happening in the real world.

 

[D365]

I think they're suggesting bypasses on the ECML, to remove the conflicts between intercity and local services.
Which, sure, if money and resources were no object would be great. But there is zero business case for them happening in the real world.

Thanks. I had read the title as ”cast offs”, as in rolling stock.

 

[HSTEd]

I seem to recall that the original Virgin bid for the intercity east coast franchise involved cut off high speed lines (they lost to GNER) and TGV derived rolling stock.

Does anyone remember where they were proposed to be built?

 

[ainsworth74]

I seem to recall that the original Virgin bid for the intercity east coast franchise involved cut off high speed lines (they lost to GNER) and TGV derived rolling stock.

Does anyone remember where they were proposed to be built?

As per a BBC News article from the time (March 2000):

It plans to build a new track between Peterborough and Newcastle in order to operate French-style TGVs (trains grand vitesse) like the Eurostar London-to-Paris train on its route.

Virgin says it will cost £3.5bn to upgrade the track, and £1.8bn to purchase 60 TGV trains which would be built in Birmingham and would be fully operational by 2009.

BBC News | BUSINESS | Virgin's 200mph East Coast vision

Would have been a heck of a project and doubtless massively scaled back in the final analysis.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think they're suggesting bypasses on the ECML, to remove the conflicts between intercity and local services.
Which, sure, if money and resources were no object would be great. But there is zero business case for them happening in the real world.

Darlington to ‘somewhere north of Chester-le-Street‘, would that not be achieved with the Leamside line, or is this wanted as well?

But neither suggestion would be wanted by the people of Morpeth or Durham. They want calls in the main LNER service, as can be seen in various existing threads where these bypasses have been suggested before.

Also, they're not original ideas, they come up fairly regularly.

 

[ainsworth74]

Darlington to ‘somewhere north of Chester-le-Street‘, would that not be the Leamside line, or is this wanted as well?

Sort of, the Leamside line branches off further North than Darlington (it's roughly halfway between Darlington and Durham). I reckon the best that can be hoped for is Network Rail's mulled plans to re-open the Leamside Line and treat it along with Stillington (the line down to Stockton) and the line via Yarm as the ECML's "slow lines" to move freight entirely off the two track bit between Northallerton and Newcastle.

This of course has been rendered more tricky with Washington joining the TW Metro as that will doubtless use some of the Leamside line's former alignment. So you might just want to do it as a Durham cut-off which was Network Rai's other idea to partially re-open the Leamside line but have it re-join the existing ECML just north of Durham. Doesn't get quite as many benefits as avoiding that stretch of the ECML entirely but gets close.

There was a strategy document that Network Rail put out about five years ago now that detailed their thoughts for how to improve capacity on the ECML between roughly Colton Junction (just south of York) and Newcastle. Can't recall where it is now though.

 

[swt_passenger]

Sort of, the Leamside line branches off further North than Darlington (it's roughly halfway between Darlington and Durham). I reckon the best that can be hoped for is Network Rail's mulled plans to re-open the Leamside Line and treat it along with Stillington (the line down to Stockton) and the line via Yarm as the ECML's "slow lines" to move freight entirely off the two track bit between Northallerton and Newcastle.

But there’s probably no real need to bypass anything between Darlington and Tursdale Junction, I’d have thought, until such time as they reopen Ferryhill, but presumably a reopened Ferryhill would be either looped either side of the mainlines, or on a dedicated slow pair?

 

[IanXC]

Sort of, the Leamside line branches off further North than Darlington (it's roughly halfway between Darlington and Durham). I reckon the best that can be hoped for is Network Rail's mulled plans to re-open the Leamside Line and treat it along with Stillington (the line down to Stockton) and the line via Yarm as the ECML's "slow lines" to move freight entirely off the two track bit between Northallerton and Newcastle.

This of course has been rendered more tricky with Washington joining the TW Metro as that will doubtless use some of the Leamside line's former alignment. So you might just want to do it as a Durham cut-off which was Network Rai's other idea to partially re-open the Leamside line but have it re-join the existing ECML just north of Durham. Doesn't get quite as many benefits as avoiding that stretch of the ECML entirely but gets close.

There was a strategy document that Network Rail put out about five years ago now that detailed their thoughts for how to improve capacity on the ECML between roughly Colton Junction (just south of York) and Newcastle. Can't recall where it is now though.

I'm not sure if I'm just not up to speed, but have we seen who the infrastructure owner is proposed to be for the T&W Metro extension? Given it starts from South Hylton which is Network Rail infrastructure, perhaps it makes sense for all the new route to be Network Rail?

Is it the "Church Fenton to Newcastle Strategic Advice 2020" on this page you're thinking of? https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/long-term-planning/

 

[Zomboid]

This of course has been rendered more tricky with Washington joining the TW Metro as that will doubtless use some of the Leamside line's former alignment. So you might just want to do it as a Durham cut-off which was Network Rai's other idea to partially re-open the Leamside line but have it re-join the existing ECML just north of Durham. Doesn't get quite as many benefits as avoiding that stretch of the ECML entirely but gets close.

Not necessarily. The Metro runs over heavy rail tracks from Pelaw to South Hylton, and heavy rail freight trains run over Metro tracks to access Jarrow oil terminal.

So running freight and local passenger services that way shouldn't be impossible unless the signalling headways are super tight or the Washington metro service is 12tph.

 

[ainsworth74]

But there’s probably no real need to bypass anything between Darlington and Tursdale Junction, I’d have thought, until such time as they reopen Ferryhill, but presumably a reopened Ferryhill would be either looped either side of the mainlines, or on a dedicated slow pair?

The general design they were working on was having freight come off at Longlands Junction (Northallerton) run via Yarm and Eaglescliffe on to the Stillington line at Norton Junction, then through Ferryhill (on the existing alignment which is off the ECML mainlines, though suitably upgraded I'm sure) onto the Leamside line. This effectively removes freight from two track section of the ECML between Longlands Junction and Tyne Yard/Newcastle.

I'm not sure if I'm just not up to speed, but have we seen who the infrastructure owner is proposed to be for the T&W Metro extension? Given it starts from South Hylton which is Network Rail infrastructure, perhaps it makes sense for all the new route to be Network Rail?

No I think you're right actually I'm not sure we do know who the infrastructure owner would be. Network Rail would make sense but this is the railway

Is it the "Church Fenton to Newcastle Strategic Advice 2020" on this page you're thinking of? https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/long-term-planning/

Yes that's the document I was referring to, good memory!

Not necessarily. The Metro runs over heavy rail tracks from Pelaw to South Hylton, and heavy rail freight trains run over Metro tracks to access Jarrow oil terminal.

So running freight and local passenger services that way shouldn't be impossible unless the signalling headways are super tight or the Washington metro service is 12tph.

Yes I'm well aware being someone who ends up traversing that line every month or so

But my point being TW Metro does act as a constraint on the ability of the new line to accommodate freight or accommodate growth in freight demand. Just depends on what the scope of Washington service as whether how much freight it could accommodate. My concern would be that because, at the point of design, there would be no freight that the people designing it would act in such a way as to make freight difficult to accommodate in future! That being said the cut-off to just north of Durham can yield a similar amount of released capacity according to Network Rail's documents (linked above).

 

[30907]

This of course has been rendered more tricky with Washington joining the TW Metro as that will doubtless use some of the Leamside line's former alignment. So you might just want to do it as a Durham cut-off which was Network Rai's other idea to partially re-open the Leamside line but have it re-join the existing ECML just north of Durham. Doesn't get quite as many benefits as avoiding that stretch of the ECML entirely but gets close.

A new-build from South of Fencehouses to South of Birtley (so on a similar alignment to the A1(M)) then quadrupling to Low Fell looks feasible.

The most you could justify further North is a Morpeth cut-off from Cramlington to Pegswood, but even that seems doubtful. I do wonder, though, if Forest Hall and Killingworth might merit stations with a half-hourly Morpeth stopper (that assumes, of course, that it could be pathed).

 

[Zomboid]

The Sunderland service seems to be 5tph, so that's probably a good starting point for the Washington service. It's a constraint no doubt, but for freight (and even an NR service to Ferry hill) it's not unworkable, given that's they level of service that has to be integrated between Pelaw and Sunderland.

 

[mike57]

Morpeth I can see as a 'want' and there looks to be a fairly clear route that could be followed that would eliminate the 50mph curve. How you finance it I have no idea. Most infrastructure projects seem to get into 'unaffordable' territory even for some that should be relativelty straightforward.

Darlington to Newcastle looks like a much bigger project, with costs to match.

How would these projects stack up against dealing with pinch points further south?

 

[465fan]

As per the title:

1. Darlington to somewhere north of Chester Le Street.
2. Killingworth to somewhere north of Widdrington.

Would allow Durham, Chester Le Street, Cramlington, Morpeth, Pegswood and Widdrington stations to have a lot more local trains.

I don't know if I'd want to bypass Durham. It's a busy station, its a university city, it's full of tourists and the fact that a few more trains don't stop there is a shambles.

As for the bit north of Newcastle, it's probably similar to the WCML north of Lancaster: ripe for a new route that cuts journey times and further prepares for HS2.

 

[A S Leib]

Durham to Newcastle is 560,000 passengers per year; 200,000 to King's Cross. How frequently could a Durham – Chester-le-Street – Newcastle service run if at least Durham were bypassed, including keeping sufficient platforms for the 5* tph terminating at Newcastle from that direction?

*Assuming 1tph TPE, 1tph CrossCountry and 3tph from the Tyne Valley

 

[IanXC]

How would these projects stack up against dealing with pinch points further south?

Off the top of my head there are 3 projects in various states:

York third line from the station to Skelton Bridge Junction (cancelled/paused by HMT *after* work started - I dread to think how much that has cost compared to just building the thing)

4 track the 3 track section, Connington to Huntingdon (has been on and off and on an off more times than, well most things)

The next 'big' project further south is surely Doncaster. This is likely to need Network North priorities to align with ECML priorities - grade separating Mexborough to Thorne to remove its interaction with the ECML. Its probably a Nuneaton scale project whichever option is selected.

 

[Northumbriana]

I seem to recall that the original Virgin bid for the intercity east coast franchise involved cut off high speed lines (they lost to GNER) and TGV derived rolling stock.

Does anyone remember where they were proposed to be built?

Appreciate I'm not exactly being precise here but south of Peterborough to north of Doncaster. Killingworth to Chevington. And six tracking from a new terminal north of King's Cross (now impossible) to the Hertford loop I think.

Darlington to ‘somewhere north of Chester-le-Street‘, would that not be achieved with the Leamside line, or is this wanted as well?

But neither suggestion would be wanted by the people of Morpeth or Durham. They want calls in the main LNER service, as can be seen in various existing threads where these bypasses have been suggested before.

Also, they're not original ideas, they come up fairly regularly.

I don't know if I'd want to bypass Durham. It's a busy station, its a university city, it's full of tourists and the fact that a few more trains don't stop there is a shambles.

As for the bit north of Newcastle, it's probably similar to the WCML north of Lancaster: ripe for a new route that cuts journey times and further prepares for HS2.

The idea being (in my mind at least) that the by passes would allow for more services in total both serving and bypassing those places. Morpeth being by passed by trains that do not stop there is not a loss for them. They're never going to get more trains calling there from LNER services no matter how much they insist on it. Their best bet is more capacity for local services. They might even be better off having a new platform in the car park for trains from the Blyth & Tyne line via Hepscott.

Btw I never said, nor thought, my ideas were original. They are inspired by the Virgin 'VGV' proposals and I've been a fan of those since it was published in RAIL magazine.

 

[mike57]

York third line from the station to Skelton Bridge Junction (cancelled/paused by HMT *after* work started - I dread to think how much that has cost compared to just building the thing)

I cant find any figures and I suspect they would be embarassing to the Treasury if they were available. I dont know if freedom of information would cover this, and of course always take whatever is presented as 'fact' with a huge pinch of salt.

Unfortunately even small scale ECML improvements to ease bottlenecks and pinch points will not happen while HS2 is sucking in ever increasing sums of money, with of course the carrot that the eastern leg of HS2 would have addressed a lot of south of York issues long gone rotten. Had HS2 east been happening then the justicication of getting as much of the remaining northern section of the ECML upto at least 125mph would have made sense. As it is the south end issues will probably get first dibs on any money should it ever become available, because realistically they are bigger problems.

 

[Brubulus]

I cant find any figures and I suspect they would be embarassing to the Treasury if they were available. I dont know if freedom of information would cover this, and of course always take whatever is presented as 'fact' with a huge pinch of salt.

Unfortunately even small scale ECML improvements to ease bottlenecks and pinch points will not happen while HS2 is sucking in ever increasing sums of money, with of course the carrot that the eastern leg of HS2 would have addressed a lot of south of York issues long gone rotten. Had HS2 east been happening then the justicication of getting as much of the remaining northern section of the ECML upto at least 125mph would have made sense. As it is the south end issues will probably get first dibs on any money should it ever become available, because realistically they are bigger problems.

Given HS2 will make the WCML the primary London-Scotland artery, the north WCML should be the focus of improvements. Firstly any money which is available (it isn't) should be used to build HS2 to Golborne. Then the next biggest journey time reductions can be done by building a bypass between Oxenholme and Penrith, which could maybe take 8-9 mins off London-Scotland and could also be used by Birmingham and Manchester-Scotland, while enabling the existing route to be a more effective freight corridor.

 

[HSTEd]

Given HS2 will make the WCML the primary London-Scotland artery, the north WCML should be the focus of improvements. Firstly any money which is available (it isn't) should be used to build HS2 to Golborne. Then the next biggest journey time reductions can be done by building a bypass between Oxenholme and Penrith, which could maybe take 8-9 mins off London-Scotland and could also be used by Birmingham and Manchester-Scotland, while enabling the existing route to be a more effective freight corridor.

The problem with spenidng money on the north WCML is that not many people are around to use it.

The London-Scotland market is tiny, and the only settlement of note between the central belt and Lancaster is Carlisle - which whilst not insignificant is hardly a bustling metropolis.

Rail upgrades on the the Anglo Scottish routes should be focussed on the east coast, because that is where the people, and thus passengers are.

 

[Class15]

The problem with spenidng money on the north WCML is that not many people are around to use it.

The London-Scotland market is tiny, and the only settlement of note between the central belt and Lancaster is Carlisle - which whilst not insignificant is hardly a bustling metropolis.

Rail upgrades on the the Anglo Scottish routes should be focussed on the east coast, because that is where the people, and thus passengers are.

The main market on the East Coast is likely London-Edinburgh. Post-HS2, I think the plan is for this to move over to the WCML.

 

[HSTEd]

The main market on the East Coast is likely London-Edinburgh. Post-HS2, I think the plan is for this to move over to the WCML.

According to the latest origin destination matrix data, Newcastle alone has ~72% of the London traffic that Edinburgh has.

Glasgow is at about 35% of Edinburgh. Darlington manages 23% of Edinburgh.

 

[Zomboid]

So Edinburgh is presently the main market north of Leeds/ Manchester.
If it's London traffic then ultimately it doesn't matter whether the trains run up the ECML or WCML, though perhaps that data points to to WCML being the better choice, so the ECML can focus more on the Newcastle market without trains arriving from Edinburgh already packed.

 

[ainsworth74]

According to the latest origin destination matrix data, Newcastle alone has ~72% of the London traffic that Edinburgh has.

Glasgow is at about 35% of Edinburgh. Darlington manages 23% of Edinburgh.

Its almost as if there was a good reason that the original plan included an eastern leg that connected into the ECML just south of York in the Church Fenton area...

Nah, must have been imagining it, cancel it and make some vague promises about investing in the existing infrastructure which can themselves be cancelled later as well.

 

[HSTEd]

So Edinburgh is presently the main market north of Leeds/ Manchester.
If it's London traffic then ultimately it doesn't matter whether the trains run up the ECML or WCML, though perhaps that data points to to WCML being the better choice, so the ECML can focus more on the Newcastle market without trains arriving from Edinburgh already packed.

The problem is that any infrastructure constructed on the WCML to help it take over the Scotland traffic will likely be heavily underutilised.
There just aren't enough trains or traffic centres between Preston and the Central Belt.

Especially if you want to justify new track. 30 ish kilometres from Manchester Airport to Golborne alone (asproposed above) would pay for a big chunk of journey time reductions on the ECML, where there are passengers to utilise them.

 

[Zomboid]

Post HS2 the WCML will already beat the ECML for journey times to/from Edinburgh - at least that's the promise. No need to do any upgrades.

So upgrade the ECML south of Newcastle to benefit what will remain a substantial market, but most of the Edinburgh market will probably be going the other way.

And WCML upgrades should probably be focused on the busy end as well (between Preston and Handsacre), unless they're needed for capacity over Shap/ Beattock etc now the Edinburgh to London traffic is added to the Glasgow traffic.

 

[YorksLad12]

Off the top of my head there are 3 projects in various states:

York third line from the station to Skelton Bridge Junction (cancelled/paused by HMT *after* work started - I dread to think how much that has cost compared to just building the thing)

4 track the 3 track section, Connington to Huntingdon (has been on and off and on an off more times than, well most things)

The next 'big' project further south is surely Doncaster. This is likely to need Network North priorities to align with ECML priorities - grade separating Mexborough to Thorne to remove its interaction with the ECML. Its probably a Nuneaton scale project whichever option is selected.

There is an aspiration (very long term) to run tram trains to Doncaster from Sheffield (or Barnsley!) in which case you could imagine the trams coming off near Cherry Tree Road and taking a route to the front of the rail station. There's already a Doncaster avoider on that route. That said, I'd agree with Doncaster getting an overhaul to regularise platform lengths and to allow services to be segregated better (the EMR ones to Lincoln and Peterborough leave from P2 or P5, the latter requiring a cross over the through lines).

 

[Starmill]

Trying to create freight capacity elsewhere makes more sense because it probably doesn't put the FOC at too much of a commercial disadvantage, and may actually put them at a slight advantage overall when considering performance and spread of slot opportunities through the day. The idea of bypassing the passenger trains is a much harder sell from a stakeholder perspective because people want long-distance trains to stop in their town, and nobody wants a worse service than at present on any kind of scale.

HS2 services are going to run into this problem in a big way when it comes to the interactions between their trains and the existing service at Rugeley Trent Valley (Colwich Jn), Stone, Stafford, Stoke-on-Trent and Crewe, and no doubt a few other places with lots of interactions like Preston and Carlisle. At least in their case there's time to try and do something about that and clarify how what's left of HS2 can interact with freight and existing passenger services.