The Leamside line

[sprinterguy]

The Metros are more tram than train in my eyes, there's a marked difference between them and traditional heavy rail DMUs. Of course they have the advantage of being able to share tracks with heavy rail services, but with the massive disadvantage that once the Metro turns up, there's no hope of electrifying that particualr route with standard 25kV.

I have a feeling that a Metro "loop" extension, from South Hylton-Penshaw-Washington-Pelaw, as mentioned further up, could be one of the simplest form of reopenings for this section of the Leamside, and it would have the advantage of linking into the current rapid transit system and provide Washington with their much needed passenger service.

However I'm with 142094 here, as I'd rather that didn't happen, as the Leamside would make a valuable freight route avoiding the ECML, especially if it was electrified throughout. I think that offers much bigger advantages from the use of the line than any other Metro plan.

Maybe it would be possible to route the hourly Newcastle Transpennine service that way, bypassing Durham and stopping only at Washington on the Leamside, seeing as it has slower journey times from Newcastle-York than other ECML Intercity services, and then have a Newcastle-Washington-Middlesborough/Hartlepool local service via the Stillington line calling at all stations. That would keep slower 75mph units off the ECML, as well as keeping the 100mph 185s out of the way of 125mph Intercity services, and still give Washington a link with the ECML at either end of the Leamside (Newcastle and Darlington) whilst also serving Teesside.

Benefits from the reopening for Nissan, being able to ship cars from the Washington factory to Tyne Dock for export, would be much greater if the alignment of the Boldon Colliery line was still available and a massive cinema hadn't been built on the trackbed, as the train could then go direct to Tyne Dock, as it is, that is impossible. Surely a rail link would be able to bring in parts for the cars to Washington from other areas as well.

 

[Darandio]

Maybe it would be possible to route the hourly Newcastle Transpennine service that way, bypassing Durham and stopping only at Washington on the Leamside, seeing as it has slower journey times from Newcastle-York than other ECML Intercity services, and then have a Newcastle-Washington-Middlesborough/Hartlepool local service via the Stillington line calling at all stations. That would keep slower 75mph units off the ECML, as well as keeping the 100mph 185s out of the way of 125mph Intercity services, and still give Washington a link with the ECML at either end of the Leamside (Newcastle and Darlington) whilst also serving Teesside.

Agree with you on 75mph units but there isn't that much of a need to kick the Class 185's off that portion of the route as a lot of the running on that stretch isn't over 100mph anyway. Only a mile or so after the Leamside has left the ECML at Tursdale, you trade between 100mph and 90mph and then from Durham it is 90mph to near enough Chester Le-Street where there is a short burst of 115mph past Birtley before then slowing for Newcastle. All the time is lost for the 185's between York and Newcastle on the racetrack south of Northallerton where they will quite often be stuck on the slows at 75mph or indeed if on the fast, cannot match the 125mph limit.

In the last propositions from Network Rail, they did actually suggest sending around half of the Transpennine services around the Durham Coast instead but nothing came of it.

 

[sprinterguy]

Agree with you on 75mph units but there isn't that much of a need to kick the Class 185's off that portion of the route as a lot of the running on that stretch isn't over 100mph anyway. Only a mile or so after the Leamside has left the ECML at Tursdale, you trade between 100mph and 90mph and then from Durham it is 90mph to near enough Chester Le-Street where there is a short burst of 115mph past Birtley before then slowing for Newcastle. All the time is lost for the 185's between York and Newcastle on the racetrack south of Northallerton where they will quite often be stuck on the slows at 75mph or indeed if on the fast, cannot match the 125mph limit.

In the last propositions from Network Rail, they did actually suggest sending around half of the Transpennine services around the Durham Coast instead but nothing came of it.

Ah true, that section of the ECML isn't that fast anyway, cheers for the detail. I do still reckon that sending the Transpennine service via a reopened Leamside would be a good idea, as it would provide a half hourly train service between Washington-Newcastle (hourly TPE and hourly Newcastle-Middlesborough local), and serve two southerly destinations (Darlington and Middlesborough), with the need for comparitively little extra rolling stock.

And it would be good to see Transpennine services sent by the Durham coast if the Leamside wasn't reopened. The Sunderland-Liverpool trains pre-Metro were really pleasant to travel on locally, and provided a really useful direct link to the likes of Leeds and Manchester.

 

[142094]

The Metros are more tram than train in my eyes, there's a marked difference between them and traditional heavy rail DMUs. Of course they have the advantage of being able to share tracks with heavy rail services, but with the massive disadvantage that once the Metro turns up, there's no hope of electrifying that particualr route with standard 25kV.

I still see Metros as rail and not trams, the main difference being that Metros don't run on roads and never will be able to. Granted it may be light rail rather than heavy but it is still rail. There is a difference between them and DMUs but that is due to the design - quick acceleration for lines with many stops. However it is annoying that the OHLE is not compatible with others, but this realistically means that Network Rail were not going to electrify the Durham Coast line in the near future so might as well have something else.

I have a feeling that a Metro "loop" extension, from South Hylton-Penshaw-Washington-Pelaw, as mentioned further up, could be one of the simplest form of reopenings for this section of the Leamside, and it would have the advantage of linking into the current rapid transit system and provide Washington with their much needed passenger service.

The main problem with any extension of the Metro is that we'd have more dilution of services due to the finite amount of Metrocars going round the system. So if there was a Washington loop this would mean either a reduction in the amount of services going this way or going around the North Tyneside loop. What they could do is have trains terminating at Benton to run back to Washington/Sunderland again, which would save time rather than going all the way to St James. Best option would be to extend from South Hylton to Washington and have a Heworth style interchange where you could change onto a heavy rail service to Newcastle or Darlington. IIRC when Northumberland Park was built it was designed so that a pltform could be quickly built if the ABT was reopened.

Maybe it would be possible to route the hourly Newcastle Transpennine service that way, bypassing Durham and stopping only at Washington on the Leamside, seeing as it has slower journey times from Newcastle-York than other ECML Intercity services, and then have a Newcastle-Washington-Middlesborough/Hartlepool local service via the Stillington line calling at all stations. That would keep slower 75mph units off the ECML, as well as keeping the 100mph 185s out of the way of 125mph Intercity services, and still give Washington a link with the ECML at either end of the Leamside (Newcastle and Darlington) whilst also serving Teesside.

Perhaps every other hourly Man Airport - Newcastle train could run through to Sunderland, would provide better direct links. If they ran on the Leamside this would cause problems for Chester-le-Street having less services per day.

Benefits from the reopening for Nissan, being able to ship cars from the Washington factory to Tyne Dock for export, would be much greater if the alignment of the Boldon Colliery line was still available and a massive cinema hadn't been built on the trackbed, as the train could then go direct to Tyne Dock, as it is, that is impossible. Surely a rail link would be able to bring in parts for the cars to Washington from other areas as well.

Probably would either need a run around at Pelaw or a new chord to link the Leamisde with the Durham Coast line. Not sure about car parts, from what I'm told a far bit are made locally and transported by road.

 

[sprinterguy]

The main problem with any extension of the Metro is that we'd have more dilution of services due to the finite amount of Metrocars going round the system. So if there was a Washington loop this would mean either a reduction in the amount of services going this way or going around the North Tyneside loop..

Yeah, I meant to add to my post that the intorduction of such a loop whilst maintaining a similar service level as at present wouldn't be possible until the Metrocars are replaced in 10-15 years and a bigger order of vehicles could be ordered to cover this service. I'd like to see Washington reconnected to the rail network a bit sooner than that.

What they could do is have trains terminating at Benton to run back to Washington/Sunderland again, which would save time rather than going all the way to St James. Best option would be to extend from South Hylton to Washington and have a Heworth style interchange where you could change onto a heavy rail service to Newcastle or Darlington. IIRC when Northumberland Park was built it was designed so that a pltform could be quickly built if the ABT was reopened.

That sounds like a very sensible little idea. Wouldn't you end up with a reduced service on either the airport line or coast loop though by cutting Washington/Sunderland journeys short at the north end? I really like the sound of a Washington Metro-heavy rail interchange though, sounds like a plan that does!

Interesting, I didn't know that Northumberland Park had been designed with the Blyth and Tyne in mind, it never occured to me.

Perhaps every other hourly Man Airport - Newcastle train could run through to Sunderland, would provide better direct links. If they ran on the Leamside this would cause problems for Chester-le-Street having less services per day.

Like the Liverpools used to, yeah I can see that would be better, and cause less of a need for extra trains due to the longer journey of running all the way round the Durham coast. The Transpennine services sit around at Newcastle for quite a while if I remember rightly, you might very nearly be able to get the 185 down to Sunderland and back in time to work it's scheduled Newcastle departure with a quick turn around in Sunderland.

 

[142094]

Yeah, I meant to add to my post that the intorduction of such a loop whilst maintaining a similar service level as at present wouldn't be possible until the Metrocars are replaced in 10-15 years and a bigger order of vehicles could be ordered to cover this service. I'd like to see Washington reconnected to the rail network a bit sooner than that.

Same here, I would hope to see Leamside reopened in the next 10-15 years. Probably not happen but we'll see.

That sounds like a very sensible little idea. Wouldn't you end up with a reduced service on either the airport line or coast loop though by cutting Washington/Sunderland journeys short at the north end? I really like the sound of a Washington Metro-heavy rail interchange though, sounds like a plan that does!

You'll probably know that there was originally 4 lines on the Metro: The green from Airport to South Shields, the yellow from Pelaw to St James, the blue from St James to North Shields and the red from Benton to Pelaw. Can't be sure when these changed but in effect the red line is still there now but it is really part of the now yellow line from South Shields to St James, and used in the morning and evening peaks. Some trains terminate short at Benton, Monkseaton, South Gosforth and Regent Centre. I'm not sure what heppens to most of these terminating services although I bet a few go back to the depot. So in effect the ones at the depot could do a trip from South Gosforth to Washington via Sunderland or Sunderland via Washington and continue on back to South Gosforth. Or (what I think should happen) is that the South Hylton services should be extended to Washington and have perhaps a Washington - South Gosforth service via Sunderland and a Pelaw - St James service. Of course this would mean a platform change at South Gosforth for going to the Aiport or Coast, but at least it would be the same platform, and the train behind would be going to one of those.

Interesting, I didn't know that Northumberland Park had been designed with the Blyth and Tyne in mind, it never occured to me.

I'm not 100% sure but I remember reading that the layout is such that a new platform could be created for the ABT, and that is why Northumberland Park is an island platform and not two seperate platforms like Palmersville and Shiremoor. If the ABT and Leamside are reopened it would be great to see 3 Metro-Heavy rail interchanges at Heworth, Northumberland Park and Washington and then the sharing of platforms at Sunderland and the main interchange at Newcastle Central. Imagine doing a Blyth to Washington trip and never having to get a bus or leave the station!

Like the Liverpools used to, yeah I can see that would be better, and cause less of a need for extra trains due to the longer journey of running all the way round the Durham coast. The Transpennine services sit around at Newcastle for quite a while if I remember rightly, you might very nearly be able to get the 185 down to Sunderland and back in time to work it's scheduled Newcastle departure with a quick turn around in Sunderland.

I think they get a quick clean at Newcastle but not much else, so really this could be done in 10 minutes at Sunderland. Might be a bit of problems with pathing but I guess it is acceptible now for people to get the Metro to Central and go from there. Since GC started I wonder what the flow of people from Sunderland to Newcastle is to catch south bound services?

 

[sprinterguy]

I dimly recall the red and blue Metro lines on the route, couldn't remember exactly where they ran from and to, and I do remember that there are peak hour Pelaw to Benton services. There do always seem to be a few spare Metrocar sets at South Gosforth depot if you pass by during the middle of the day. I think the peak requirement for Metrocars is 82 out of the 90 trains.

Ah I can see that your proposed jiggling of the timetable and services could free up enough Metros to be redeployed: Washington-Sunderland-South Gosforth, Pelaw-St. James and South Shields-Airport. Very good. I imagine that most travel demand on the Metro system from Sunderland is to Newcastle city centre anyway, and for passengers going to North Shields or Whitley Bay it's quicker to change at Monument onto an anti-clockwise loop service from St. James. I like the sound of this.

Being able to go direct from Blyth to Washington without leaving stations would be quite a novelty! Although the journey length would be considerably more than the straight line distance! Not that I can see that being an issue.

 

[142094]

That 82 sounds familiar, although with 2 sets now at Doncaster this means it is 82 out of 88. Thinking again about the Metro, this is what should happen with the lines:

1) Green line goes back to being South Shields - Airport. This can be self contained so the stock does this route and nothing else

2) Yellow line reverts back to St. James - Pelaw and South Hylton/Washington

3) The current 5 tph to South Hylton is maintained and extended as far as Washington. Services towards Newcastle terminate short.

4) Those services that terminate short should do so somewhere like Monkseaton or Whitley Bay, as it is probably quicker to change at Monument to get to stations further than Whitley Bay clockwise around the loop rather than staying on the same train.

5) So this should mean the same amount of trains being used as now, but with the extension to Washington means services take longer to get there (so could mean that they could terminate even shorter at Pelaw, to make the Sunderland and Washington extension a self-contained run as well).

 

[tbtc]

Shame TPE can't do Manchester Airport - Leeds - York - Darlington - Durham - Chester le Street - Newcastle - Sunderland - Hartlepool - Eaglescliffe - York - Leeds - Manchester Airport clockwise and anti-clockwise every couple of hours.

Also a shame that the (short lived) half hourly Newcastle - Hartlepool service was cut back to hourly again

 

[Bish Boy]

Best option would be to extend from South Hylton to Washington and have a Heworth style interchange where you could change onto a heavy rail service to Newcastle or Darlington.

I like this idea however wouldn't Victoria viaduct need massive repairs to allow metro (light rail not trams!) and heavy rail services? when last used it was single track. Also the line would give Durham a second station at the park and ride at Carrville. Why isn't this line open again?

 

[142094]

It probably would be I guess most of the track would need to be renewed anyway, so easy enough to put down two lines at the same time.

 

[sprinterguy]

I was wondering about Victoria viaduct: It was single tracked principally because of gauging issues concerning the distance between trains, especially on the tight curves at either end, and having walked across it once or twice the viaduct itself is pretty narrow. I can see it would be a major potential bottleneck, and my thoughts on that a new Metro crossing, similar to the Byker viaduct adjacent to the older ECML one would be beneficial for this plan, although this would of course raise the construction costs quite a bit! If there are also issues with maximum permitted weight limits on the viaduct, then a new Metro bridge might be the only option.

 

[Bish Boy]

Maybe use the viaduct for metro as they're lighter and smaller then build a new heavy rail bridge more expensive but would improve the tight runs for larger trains by the new bridge going more north south located to the east of the viaduct. I agree Sprinterguy the cost would be massive on an allegedly already non viable project. Shame local industry and business such as nissan and tyne dock etc dont seem to want to fund parts of projects like this to improve and boost the local area.

 

[Darandio]

Shame local industry and business such as nissan and tyne dock etc dont seem to want to fund parts of projects like this to improve and boost the local area.

Indeed, they just like to receive multi million pound grants in order to provide jobs, then take the plaudits when the jobs are created. To me it stinks, but if it provides jobs for a few years, I suppose it has benefits.

 

[142094]

Either that or government money would be wasted on benefits.

 

[sprinterguy]

Maybe use the viaduct for metro as they're lighter and smaller then build a new heavy rail bridge more expensive but would improve the tight runs for larger trains by the new bridge going more north south located to the east of the viaduct. I agree Sprinterguy the cost would be massive on an allegedly already non viable project. Shame local industry and business such as nissan and tyne dock etc dont seem to want to fund parts of projects like this to improve and boost the local area.

True, a new heavy rail bridge would be more beneficial in boosting capacity by straightening out the tight curves either side of the viaduct and getting rid of the 25mph speed limit and single track alignment. Shouldn't that be west of the existing structure though? To have the south end of the new bridge further towards the Penshaw direction.

It would be great to get local industry like Nissan involved, but they just don't seem to care about improving the local area.

 

[PinzaC55]

The original idea for bring the Metro into Sunderland was to use the Queen Alexandra Bridge then the course of the former Hylton,Southwick & Monkwearmouth railway to Southwick Junction at Washington. Unfortunately Sunderland Council put the mockers on that by demolishing the approach viaducts to the QEB in 1982. It's something of an urban myth that the QEB wasn't strong enough for trains but I spoke to a guy several years ago who was part of the team which surveyed the QEB in the 1970's as part of the Metro project and he says it was perfectly capable of carrying trains again. Of course if a Metro extension to Washington used the Victoria bridge it would not only have to miss out Penshaw but it would rule out the Leamside being electrified.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Shame TPE can't do Manchester Airport - Leeds - York - Darlington - Durham - Chester le Street - Newcastle - Sunderland - Hartlepool - Eaglescliffe - York - Leeds - Manchester Airport clockwise and anti-clockwise every couple of hours.

Also a shame that the (short lived) half hourly Newcastle - Hartlepool service was cut back to hourly again

Used to run 2-hourly York (as normal ex-Manc), Darlington, Durham, Newc, Sunderland (terminate) and back to Manc via Newc, but was scrapped when the FTPE franchise began

 

[Bish Boy]

True, a new heavy rail bridge would be more beneficial in boosting capacity by straightening out the tight curves either side of the viaduct and getting rid of the 25mph speed limit and single track alignment. Shouldn't that be west of the existing structure though? To have the south end of the new bridge further towards the Penshaw direction

Yeah sorry west must have my head on backwards lol. How do the Metro deal with level crossings as coming out of South Hylton the line is at road level?

Pinzac55: Maybe Penshaw would miss out on the Metro but it could have a station served by local Northern services though.

 

[142094]

How do the Metro deal with level crossings as coming out of South Hylton the line is at road level?

If there was a level crossing there just after the current station it shouldn't make a difference to what speed a Metro can travel over it as it will be slowing down or just starting to move anyway. On the Sunderland extension the Metros normally go full speed over the level crossings, it is only on the original unbarriered crossings where there is a speed restriction in place.

 

[PinzaC55]

It always struck me as curious that when they opened the Metro to Sunderland they didn't replace the crossing at East Boldon with an underbridge.It would have been very easy to do due to the lie of the road.

 

[142094]

Probably, as most things these days seem to be, due to cost. It must be a bit of a long wait at times now, especially if you get unlucky with Metros, Northern services, perhaps a GC ECS and the odd freight going past.

 

[PinzaC55]

Cost doesn't seem to worry the Metro.They spent what was it? 1 million or 2 million on putting up a big roof at PELAW? And on the Hylton extension they built a bridge to allow a "possible" new road bridge over the Wear at Claxheugh which will probably never happen as it's estimated cost is 280 million.

 

[Bish Boy]

Cost doesn't seem to worry the Metro.They spent what was it? 1 million or 2 million on putting up a big roof at PELAW? And on the Hylton extension they built a bridge to allow a "possible" new road bridge over the Wear at Claxheugh which will probably never happen as it's estimated cost is 280 million.

Also just spent 30 mill on track replacement. BTW back to Leamside would you (if you had a choice) just redirect current services or create new services? I'd love to see a Bishop Auckland (Biased lol )to Sunderland Via Washington.

 

[PinzaC55]

Well to be fair they HAVE to do track replacement! I can't see how you could have a Bishop Auckland - Washington - Newcastle service without the Bishop - Durham and Newton Hall - Leamside lines?
I think Middlesbrough - Stockton - Ferryhill - Washington - Newcastle would be viable but I can't really see them re-opening Ferryhill station.
You have to remember that a large part of the case for re-opening Leamside would be to keep traffic OFF the ECML.

 

[sprinterguy]

A Bishop Auckland to Sunderland via Washington train service would require two reversals; first at Darlington and again at Pelaw or Heworth (which would be especially inconvenient for pathing it), unless as PinzaC55 says you reopened the lines north west from Bishop to the Leamside, which is surely beyond hope. And it would also take up capacity on the ECML from Ferryhill to Darlington, although I think that this would be a likely effect of any reinstated Leamside line passenger service. Sorry Bish Boy, I'm not trying to pick holes in your idea, it would be good to see Bishop Auckland connected to places "further up".

I stick by my diverted Leamside Transpennine idea: The hourly Newcastle to Manchester Airport TPE would be diverted via the Leamside line, acting as a semi-fast calling at only Washington and "Durham Parkway" at Belmont. I would also introduce an hourly Newcastle-Washington-Stillington-Stockton-Middlesborough all stations local service, which would keep the service off the ECML, and give Washington a better selection of destinationswell as a reasonable half hourly service.

I would increase Chester-le-Street stops in the Crosscountry Newcastle to Reading trains to ensure Chester-le-Street retained a reasonabe service, and the fast acceleration of the Voyagers would mean that this wouldn't incur much extra running time. Plus, as some of these services already stop at Chester-le-Street, there shouldn't be a need to fiddle the timings to accomodate the stop in more trains on the route. This also means that Chester-le-Street would then have regular connections into both the North AND South Transpennine routes at York/Leeds and Sheffield respectively, as opposed to just connections straight into North TPE.

 

[pinkpanther]

A Bishop Auckland to Sunderland via Washington train service would require two reversals; first at Darlington and again at Pelaw or Heworth (which would be especially inconvenient for pathing it), unless as PinzaC55 says you reopened the lines north west from Bishop to the Leamside, which is surely beyond hope. And it would also take up capacity on the ECML from Ferryhill to Darlington, although I think that this would be a likely effect of any reinstated Leamside line passenger service. Sorry Bish Boy, I'm not trying to pick holes in your idea, it would be good to see Bishop Auckland connected to places "further up".

Sadly true. I grew up in Bish too and much as I'd love to see the Durham line reopened I reckon any chance of that evaporated when the old station was demolished in (IIRC) 1986 and the trackbed/viaduct turned into a bypass.

FWIW when I saw the so called "new" station for the first time on 19th Feb from the 1st charter up the Weardale branch it was a huge shock - I remember wandering around the old station in the early 80s and thinking how much character it had and how much had been needlessly lost in the 60s.

 

[cuccir]

A Bishop Auckland to Sunderland via Washington train service would require two reversals; first at Darlington and again at Pelaw or Heworth (which would be especially inconvenient for pathing it), unless as PinzaC55 says you reopened the lines north west from Bishop to the Leamside, which is surely beyond hope. And it would also take up capacity on the ECML from Ferryhill to Darlington, although I think that this would be a likely effect of any reinstated Leamside line passenger service. Sorry Bish Boy, I'm not trying to pick holes in your idea, it would be good to see Bishop Auckland connected to places "further up".

I stick by my diverted Leamside Transpennine idea: The hourly Newcastle to Manchester Airport TPE would be diverted via the Leamside line, acting as a semi-fast calling at only Washington and "Durham Parkway" at Belmont. I would also introduce an hourly Newcastle-Washington-Stillington-Stockton-Middlesborough all stations local service, which would keep the service off the ECML, and give Washington a better selection of destinationswell as a reasonable half hourly service.

I would increase Chester-le-Street stops in the Crosscountry Newcastle to Reading trains to ensure Chester-le-Street retained a reasonabe service, and the fast acceleration of the Voyagers would mean that this wouldn't incur much extra running time. Plus, as some of these services already stop at Chester-le-Street, there shouldn't be a need to fiddle the timings to accomodate the stop in more trains on the route. This also means that Chester-le-Street would then have regular connections into both the North AND South Transpennine routes at York/Leeds and Sheffield respectively, as opposed to just connections straight into North TPE.

All good ideas and hopefully how it would be used if introduced. In particular that Boro-Newcastle service could be used to provide a reliable train service in the north-east which isn't at the mercy of delays further north/south along the ECML.

In fact, if you co-ordinated a new 'Durham-Sunderland' express bus (I mean express, not the '50 minute' current definition of the X20s) to the arrival of TPE trains at Durham Parkway, then you could significantly improve connection times from Sunderland for the TPE network.

 

[Darandio]

A Bishop Auckland to Sunderland via Washington train service would require two reversals; first at Darlington and again at Pelaw or Heworth (which would be especially inconvenient for pathing it), unless as PinzaC55 says you reopened the lines north west from Bishop to the Leamside, which is surely beyond hope. And it would also take up capacity on the ECML from Ferryhill to Darlington, although I think that this would be a likely effect of any reinstated Leamside line passenger service. Sorry Bish Boy, I'm not trying to pick holes in your idea, it would be good to see Bishop Auckland connected to places "further up".

Of course, you could take away the Darlington reversal by sending it off the Leamside, down the slows at Ferryhill and round to Norton, Egalescliffe and then back to Darlington via Dinsdale thus meaning it never has to travel the ECML. Would obviously add extra time to the journey though.

 

[PinzaC55]

Regarding the idea of a train service from Bishop Auckland or anywhere "down that way" it would of course be feasible to have a junction on the site of the former Coxgreen Junction (where the NCB lines split from the main Sunderland - Penshaw line) with one curve following the original line to Penshaw North Junction (for "Heavy Rail" trains) and the other turning north to join the Leamside just short of the Victoria Bridge. The only problem with routing Metro trains over the bridge would be that it would rule out any possibility of the Leamside being electrified, since you couldn't have 2 different overhead power systems on the one bridge.
I doubt that , with modern construction techniques, it would be difficult to restore the Victoria Bridge to 2 tracks - after all it was OK until about 1980.