Tyne and Wear Metro - Washington loop extension

[jh64]

Following on from the locked thread from 2022:

Key appointment for Metro to Washington project | nexus.org.uk

Technical consultants have appointed to provide specialist design work for the Metro to Washington project. Arup, a global consultancy which specialises in design, engineering and environmental services, will conduct a feasibility study along with survey and design work for the stations...

www.nexus.org.uk

Technical consultants have appointed to provide specialist design work for the Metro to Washington project.

Arup, a global consultancy which specialises in design, engineering and environmental services, will conduct a feasibility study along with survey and design work for the stations, bridges and other key infrastructure.

Metro to Washington is a proposed 13km extension to the Tyne and Wear Metro system which forms a key part of North East Mayor Kim McGuinness’ ambition to transform local transport and create an integrated network spanning the region.

It would be the first new Metro line for more than 20 years providing a new route between the cities of Sunderland and Newcastle through the growing town of Washington and one of the largest advanced manufacturing zones.

Using former railway alignments, including part of the Leamside Line, Metro to Washington will link existing stations at Pelaw and South Hylton via Washington.

North East Mayor Kim McGuinness said: “I said that I will bring the Metro to Washington and I’m delivering on that promise. I’m delighted we have reached another major milestone with the appointment of Arup, who will now provide specialist design work for the project.

“Last summer, I announced £8m to kick-start work to bring the Metro to Washington which is a major part of my ambition to re-open the whole Leamside rail route through County Durham and Sunderland . I am determined to transform our transport network to change the lives of local people for generations to come.

“This project will be the biggest expansion of the Metro for more than 20 years – and it will be just as transformative as the Sunderland line was when it first opened back in 2002. This is such an exciting time for rail in the North East as we see these projects come to life.”

Paul Welford, Major Projects Director at Nexus, said: “We’re delighted to appoint Arup to work on this important next stage of the Metro to Washington project.

“Arup has a first class track record in providing design consultancy for large infrastructure projects. Their role will be absolutely critical in putting together a feasibility study and design work for the proposed new Metro line.”

Rachel Hurdman, Associate Director, Arup, said: “The investment in transport capability across the North East reflects a shared vision for regional growth, transforming connectivity through an integrated network and enhancing access for local communities.

“Building on Arup’s expertise in rail and infrastructure development, we look forward to working with Nexus to shape a deliverable, sustainable programme that meets the needs of communities today and for generations to come.”

In July 2024, the Mayor announced £8m to kickstart the development of Metro to Washington, with a feasibility study required to underpin the business case for the project.

The Outline Business Case (OBC) for the Metro extension to Washington is a major project which will provide full information on proposed stops and stations, economic impact data and estimated costings.

Following the appointment, Arup will now work with Nexus to deliver key preparatory work for the new Metro line, which will support the Mayor as she works to secure Government funding for the project.

 

[MetroTyler]

It's interesting they've managed to appoint Arup for the feasibility now marking perhaps a step in progress for the Washington extension at long last.

 

[DanNCL]

It’s more progress than I thought would be made in anything remotely like the timeframe it’s been done in, but I remain unconvinced that this project will get beyond the planning stage.

There’s still many unanswered questions including whether there’s any realistic chance of the government paying for the line to be built, and also noting the inclusion of Sunderland-South Shields in the map shown, whether there’s capacity on the Durham Coast line between Sunderland and Boldon for these services on top of the existing Green line service - I strongly suspect there isn’t.

Nexus would also need to order extra trains for this and as far as I know there aren’t any options left on the Stadler order which means a new procurement process would be needed, potentially resulting in another manufacturer providing a micro fleet.

 

[hacman]

It’s more progress than I thought would be made in anything remotely like the timeframe it’s been done in, but I remain unconvinced that this project will get beyond the planning stage.

There’s still many unanswered questions including whether there’s any realistic chance of the government paying for the line to be built, and also noting the inclusion of Sunderland-South Shields in the map shown, whether there’s capacity on the Durham Coast line between Sunderland and Boldon for these services on top of the existing Green line service - I strongly suspect there isn’t.

Nexus would also need to order extra trains for this and as far as I know there aren’t any options left on the Stadler order which means a new procurement process would be needed, potentially resulting in another manufacturer providing a micro fleet.

Avoidance of a micro-fleet would be an allowable reason to give Stadler preference in a procurement exercise (assuming the bid isn't otherwise entirely unattractive).

A variant of the 555s for such an extension with higher top speeds or different seating layouts and such might not be the worst idea either.

Capacity between Boldon and Sunderland can be resolved, especially if the requirements for Metro services to be protected with extra space is dropped once all the 555s are in service.

The real issue is as you say who will pay for all this, given that the Victoria Viaduct would need substantial work, including a new curve alignment to the south, as the original line didn't go that way. There will also be a couple of complicated/expensive compulsory purchases, and the need to widen the bridge under the A19 which will get pricy.

All that said, the extension would very likely get a good amount of use, and would increase the amount of use the South Hylton-Sunderland section sees. I don't see the shepards-hook like part from the Leamside onto the South Shields line at Pelaw ever working or making sense, but the rest wouldn't be too crazy. If this was elsewhere in the country, it probably would have been far more progressed than this even 10+ years ago.

Hopefully, the speed of progress we're seeing so far continues, and either gets it built or, if nothing else, permanently rules it out, allowing other plans to be explored.

 

[Paul_10]

It’s more progress than I thought would be made in anything remotely like the timeframe it’s been done in, but I remain unconvinced that this project will get beyond the planning stage.

There’s still many unanswered questions including whether there’s any realistic chance of the government paying for the line to be built, and also noting the inclusion of Sunderland-South Shields in the map shown, whether there’s capacity on the Durham Coast line between Sunderland and Boldon for these services on top of the existing Green line service - I strongly suspect there isn’t.

Nexus would also need to order extra trains for this and as far as I know there aren’t any options left on the Stadler order which means a new procurement process would be needed, potentially resulting in another manufacturer providing a micro fleet.

Im not sure extra trains are needed in all honesty. At the moment there is 28 diagrams, if the frequency increases to every 10 minutes then that is probably only an extra 4 trains/diagrams(2 on each line) then add in the Washington extension and it's probably only an extra 2 or 3 diagrams to fill in that part of the line so in theory around 35 out of the 46 units will be in active use and even if I got my sums wrong then there should still be enough spare sets for maintenance/to be on standby.

 

[hacman]

Im not sure extra trains are needed in all honesty. At the moment there is 28 diagrams, if the frequency increases to every 10 minutes then that is probably only an extra 4 trains/diagrams(2 on each line) then add in the Washington extension and it's probably only an extra 2 or 3 diagrams to fill in that part of the line so in theory around 35 out of the 46 units will be in active use and even if I got my sums wrong then there should still be enough spare sets for maintenance/to be on standby.

The plan is to reinstate the peak time workings, which is why 46 units were needed to enable the base 10-minute frequency across the system.

It would be logical to assume that if the Washington loop went ahead these trains would be added as a new line, running from somewhere north of Newcastle city centre to either Sunderland or South Shields, so that might fold into what was previously the extra peak services, or may be something entirely additional - the latter of which would be very likely to need extra equipment.

 

[MetroTyler]

For a bit more assurance on the subject, the Chronicle have now released a publication that seemingly confirms the information for sure. Their goal is 2033.

Metro extension to Washington 'will happen' following £1.8bn promise

Rachel Reeves will today unveil a £15.6 billion package of transport upgrades outside London and the South East, paving the way for a long-awaited extension of the Metro to Washington

www.chroniclelive.co.uk

Internet Archive version: https://web.archive.org/web/2025060...tyne-wear-metro-extension-washington-31781475

4 June 2025 - "Tyne and Wear Metro extension to Washington 'will happen' by 2033 following £1.8bn funding promise"

A new Tyne and Wear Metro line to Washington should open by 2033, after Labour committed to the “biggest ever investment” in the North’s transport infrastructure.

 

[Dstock7080]

For more assurance from a better source, Nexus press release:

Mayor announces new Metro line in ‘game changing’ £1.85 billion funding deal | nexus.org.uk

North East Mayor Kim McGuinness today announced the first new Metro line for 30 years will be built as part of a £1.85bn funding deal agreed with the Government. The new Metro line through Washington stands at the heart of the largest single package of investment ever made in the North East’s...

www.nexus.org.uk

4 June 2025
North East Mayor Kim McGuinness today announced the first new Metro line for 30 years will be built as part of a £1.85bn funding deal agreed with the Government.
The new Metro line through Washington stands at the heart of the largest single package of investment ever made in the North East’s transport networks, funding a huge investment in road maintenance, better and safer walking and cycling routes and new bus priority measures.

 

[speciallygreen]

What are the options for modifying the layout at Pelaw to allow for terminating services from the Leamside line?

 

[hacman]

What are the options for modifying the layout at Pelaw to allow for terminating services from the Leamside line?

I can't imagine there would be any change for this purpose. You'd hope that services coming off the Leamside would also continue to Newcastle, as dumping passengers out at Pelaw and requiring a change would be... less than ideal.

Pelaw is about to become quite a complicated junction though!

 

[speciallygreen]

You'd hope that services coming off the Leamside would also continue to Newcastle

Interesting, I hadn't thought of that. The green line would then become a giant loop with half the services going clockwise around Sunderland and half going anti-clockwise?

 

[hacman]

Interesting, I hadn't thought of that. The green line would then become a giant loop with half the services going clockwise around Sunderland and half going anti-clockwise?

Either that, or have it split into two routes with it terminating somewhere in Sunderland and somewhere in Newcastle.

Work would need to be done to determine what works best for timetabling and resource allocation.

 

[speciallygreen]

Timetabling terminating services along the NR track between Pelaw and Sunderland would be hard. Which really leaves Park Lane, or the loop idea. Or, looking at the diagram, possibly a South Shields to Pelaw/Newcastle via Sunderland line!

 

[hacman]

Timetabling terminating services along the NR track between Pelaw and Sunderland would be hard. Which really leaves Park Lane, or the loop idea. Or, looking at the diagram, possibly a South Shields to Pelaw/Newcastle via Sunderland line!

If we have the reinstated second island at Sunderland by then, it may not be an issue, though.

South Shields would make the most sense, using the Tyne Dock line to leave the DCL just before Brockley Whins, with a new station at John Reid Road, and maybe an extra one on the DCL just before the route diverges, too, as the area is prime land for housing development.

 

[darloscott]

Would dropping services between Sunderland & Pelaw to every 20 minutes be much of an issue? That way you could have them every 10 mins to Pelaw, with half going one way round the loop and half the other direction without too much complication? Sunderland stations would still have 6 trains an hour, just 3 one way and 3 the other. Travel time would likely be similar?

 

[hacman]

Would dropping services between Sunderland & Pelaw to every 20 minutes be much of an issue? That way you could have them every 10 mins to Pelaw, with half going one way round the loop and half the other direction without too much complication? Sunderland stations would still have 6 trains an hour, just 3 one way and 3 the other. Travel time would likely be similar?

I can't see that happening or being popular, as the whole aim of everything that is being worked on just now is to get to a 10-minute clock-face style timetable across the entire network.

 

[speciallygreen]

South Shields would make the most sense, using the Tyne Dock line to leave the DCL just before Brockley Whins, with a new station at John Reid Road, and maybe an extra one on the DCL just before the route diverges, too

It might make more sense to move the current Brockley Whins station a bit further west to before the junction and allow for connections and save having another stop so close by in relatively less dense housing. Or go the other way and move it east - it looks like there's an existing pedestrian alleyway to Inverness Rd, then as you say a new station west of the Tyne Dock line junction for connections.

Of course I'd rather see the other optional connection built between Leamside and Hebburn because it would be more convenient for me!

 

[Snex]

Still think this is a stupid idea personally. It'd be much better being a national rail service going to Washington extending the Carlisle boards, so Platform 5-8 are through platforms with all the services running through rather than crossing the tracks to get into Platform 10+.

There's nothing, at all, light rail about the line and the stations are in the middle of nowhere, in terms of rapid transport.

It would also open the opportunity for an extension down to Leamside, Ferryhill, Belmont, Fenceshouses etc which are all sizeable communities.

 

[hacman]

This proposal (if done correctly) does not rule out those extensions.

Furthermore, I'm sure people in the areas served would rather have a train every 10 minutes that connects them to Sunderland and Newcastle via Pelaw and Gateshead, as opposed to a two-car ageing diesel train every 30 minutes that would likely only connect them to Newcastle and not many places in between.

Extension of Carlisle services is the last thing this needs too - through running across Newcastle is already the root of a number of problems that result in cancellations and delays propagating throughout the region.

 

[Snex]

This proposal (if done correctly) does not rule out those extensions.

Furthermore, I'm sure people in the areas served would rather have a train every 10 minutes that connects them to Sunderland and Newcastle via Pelaw and Gateshead, as opposed to a two-car ageing diesel train every 30 minutes that would likely only connect them to Newcastle and not many places in between.

Extension of Carlisle services is the last thing this needs too - through running across Newcastle is already the root of a number of problems that result in cancellations and delays propagating throughout the region.

The trains aren't every 10 minutes to Newcastle though. It's every 20 minutes. The planned routings have already been released. It's 3 TPH to Heworth and 3 TPH to Monkseaton. It was in one of the past meetings, I've just had a look to find it but since the Transport North East site has been took down, it's very hard to find stuff with them all running to the Airport via Sunderland.

Personally I'd love to see where the passengers are coming from as I can't see any demand from Washington outskirts to Sunderland to warrant 6 TPH especially since the buses via Sunderland Hospital have been recently cut from 4 BPH to 3 BPH and that serves a major hospital en-route and numerous other communities. There is pretty certaintly no demand in the other direction as there's nothing at any of the stations.

I'll believe it when it happens, especially the Washington South to South Hylton section.

 

[hacman]

The trains aren't every 10 minutes to Newcastle though. It's every 20 minutes. The planned routings have already been released. It's 3 TPH to Heworth and 3 TPH to Monkseaton. It was in one of the past meetings, I've just had a look to find it but since the Transport North East site has been took down, it's very hard to find stuff with them all running to the Airport via Sunderland.

Personally I'd love to see where the passengers are coming from as I can't see any demand from Washington outskirts to Sunderland to warrant 6 TPH especially since the buses via Sunderland Hospital have been recently cut from 4 BPH to 3 BPH and that serves a major hospital en-route and numerous other communities. There is pretty certaintly no demand in the other direction as there's nothing at any of the stations.

I'll believe it when it happens, especially the Washington South to South Hylton section.

So that would still be more than the half-hourly service you'd likely see if it were a Northern Rail route - and increasing that to 6 TPH would be easier if it was part of Metro than if it were part of the National Rail network.

A number of housing estates border the proposed route, along with several decent-sized industrial parks. There is also a good chunk of empty land there, so with the need for more housing, this could be the first opportunity in quite a while that the region has had to do some actual transit-oriented development. Past studies have shown that there would be a demand for the line.

 

[Snex]

So that would still be more than the half-hourly service you'd likely see if it were a Northern Rail route - and increasing that to 6 TPH would be easier if it was part of Metro than if it were part of the National Rail network.

A number of housing estates border the proposed route, along with several decent-sized industrial parks. There is also a good chunk of empty land there, so with the need for more housing, this could be the first opportunity in quite a while that the region has had to do some actual transit-oriented development. Past studies have shown that there would be a demand for the line.

It's 3 TPH from Hexham to Newcastle / beyond btw so would be the same frequency.

I'm not sure I totally agree that it would be easier under Metro as this is assuming that it's Metro or nothing. Assuming the line to Washington South only cost £550m, you've got £350m (plus the rest) to spend on the rest of the network to improve other issues, especially around central ie. Bensham Curve etc or electrification elsewhere.

There's no reason why with, not exactly major, upgrades (short section needs 4 tracking South of the King Edward Bridge) you couldn't have a local service running from the Metrocentre and beyond to Heworth and beyond without touching the ECML since it's all freeflow from Metrocentre to P5-8 and out via the High Level Bridge without crossing paths with the intercity trains. The problems only start when the Morpeth trains are connected or Tyne Valley trains head across to P9-12. I'm sure you could make all sorts of improvements with that money ie. more platforms or whatever but that's for another thread.

If this was £400m or something, I might have a different opinion, but it's costing an absolute fortune for some suburbs of Washington.

 

[hacman]

It's 3 TPH from Hexham to Newcastle / beyond btw so would be the same frequency.

I'm not sure I totally agree that it would be easier under Metro as this is assuming that it's Metro or nothing. Assuming the line to Washington South only cost £550m, you've got £350m (plus the rest) to spend on the rest of the network to improve other issues, especially around central ie. Bensham Curve etc or electrification elsewhere.

There's no reason why with, not exactly major, upgrades (short section needs 4 tracking South of the King Edward Bridge) you couldn't have a local service running from the Metrocentre and beyond to Heworth and beyond without touching the ECML since it's all freeflow from Metrocentre to P5-8 and out via the High Level Bridge without crossing paths with the intercity trains. The problems only start when the Morpeth trains are connected or Tyne Valley trains head across to P9-12. I'm sure you could make all sorts of improvements with that money ie. more platforms or whatever but that's for another thread.

If this was £400m or something, I might have a different opinion, but it's costing an absolute fortune for some suburbs of Washington.

You will struggle to get 4 tracks on the curve off the south of the King Edward Bridge - this was reduced to 3 in the late 90s intentionally as it allowed the track alignment to be improved so as to remove a previously very restrictive speed limit.

Having the Carlisle trains continue to Washington is very much a solution in search of a problem - you say yourself it’s suburbs, so why extend a long distance service into the area.

There is very little heavy rail would offer this area that Metro won’t be better at.

 

[deanmachine]

The trains aren't every 10 minutes to Newcastle though. It's every 20 minutes. The planned routings have already been released. It's 3 TPH to Heworth and 3 TPH to Monkseaton. It was in one of the past meetings, I've just had a look to find it but since the Transport North East site has been took down, it's very hard to find stuff with them all running to the Airport via Sunderland.

Personally I'd love to see where the passengers are coming from as I can't see any demand from Washington outskirts to Sunderland to warrant 6 TPH especially since the buses via Sunderland Hospital have been recently cut from 4 BPH to 3 BPH and that serves a major hospital en-route and numerous other communities. There is pretty certaintly no demand in the other direction as there's nothing at any of the stations.

I'll believe it when it happens, especially the Washington South to South Hylton section.

You're forgetting the 56 that runs to that part of Washington and is every 12 minutes between Sunderland and Newcastle. There's 10 buses per hour between Sunderland and Washington and 9 between Washington and Newcastle.

 

[mad_rich]

Apart from the operational decisions, I'd be interested in what they intend to write on the passenger info screens for the destinations.

Every day I see people confused by the figure-8 of the yellow line.

(I think it made more sense when trains in the core used to be labeled as 'THE COAST via Wallsend' or 'THE COAST via Four Lane Ends', changing to 'SOUTH SHIELDS' or 'ST. JAMES' only when they got out of the core.)

 

[GrandCentral]

I'm a little bit worried that this project has been rushed out without any plan. Only a few weeks ago the mayor was announcing a few million for a business case/assessment. Now we're hearing it's going ahead. Surely the background work has not been done and I really feel like we're going to see some really nasty surprises going ahead.

 

[alavery04]

Am I the only one who can’t wrap my head around why they’re making a loop out of it? I would’ve thought it would make more sense to have it follow the old track alignment to penshaw or fence houses with a new line from that terminus to gosforth or regent centre or something? Surely this whole loop thing is just going to be confusing for people travelling?

 

[Sland2000]

While I don't want to appear negative as the project would connect more of the region, it isn't perfect. I did think the reopening of the Leamside offered more economic potential if done right. At the moment there appears to be no station between South Hylton and Washington by turning straight onto the Victoria viaduct missing a whole load of communities in the Coalfields region - imagine buses connecting from Houghton , Hetton, Penshaw and further afield to open faster travel. I know if the Leamside line is the next step they will be potentially served but a stub to Penshaw, Biddick Woods, Shiney Row could create a feeder interchange and avoid an expensive connection to the Victoria Viaduct. Kevin

 

[hacman]

Am I the only one who can’t wrap my head around why they’re making a loop out of it? I would’ve thought it would make more sense to have it follow the old track alignment to penshaw or fence houses with a new line from that terminus to gosforth or regent centre or something? Surely this whole loop thing is just going to be confusing for people travelling?

It's pretty much to ensure that Washington has access to Sunderland without a change - the loop has always been part of suggestions and proposals, even as far back as when the Sunderland extension was in the works. It will be interesting to see how this is added to the map, though.

While I don't want to appear negative as the project would connect more of the region, it isn't perfect. I did think the reopening of the Leamside offered more economic potential if done right. At the moment there appears to be no station between South Hylton and Washington by turning straight onto the Victoria viaduct missing a whole load of communities in the Coalfields region - imagine buses connecting from Houghton , Hetton, Penshaw and further afield to open faster travel. I know if the Leamside line is the next step they will be potentially served but a stub to Penshaw, Biddick Woods, Shiney Row could create a feeder interchange and avoid an expensive connection to the Victoria Viaduct. Kevin

This scheme won't rule out adding those stations in the future or reopening heavy rail services on the Leamside. This very much sets the groundwork for further reopening of the route by ensuring there is a connection to both Pelaw and Sunderland.

Personally, I'd have liked to see the route continue down as far as Fence Houses with stops along the way, but at least what is being proposed is a good start.

 

[stuu]

I'm a little bit worried that this project has been rushed out without any plan. Only a few weeks ago the mayor was announcing a few million for a business case/assessment. Now we're hearing it's going ahead. Surely the background work has not been done and I really feel like we're going to see some really nasty surprises going ahead.

It's been talked about for decades, so it's not just been thought of