Northumberland Line to be re-opened to passengers

[zwk500]

Yes, that is true, but in infrastructure planning, we always planning in advance not legging behind, upgrading in a single time is cheaper than planning twice.

But you have to pay that cost upfront. I'm sure most people's mortgages total to more than their final offer, but they didn't have the 6-figure sum to hand.

In 2020s railway is electrified, with proper ETCS signal, and built for much higher speed. A limited budget sounds wise, but in a longer time you will waste more money to upgrade them.

This isn't a new-build railway - Crossrail and HS2 are exactly that spec, and EWR has 2 of the 3 (and should be electrified, but that's a different thread).

This is an upgrade of an existing Victorian line that is currently operational. The business case is limited by the potential traffic the railway can actually generate. Better to build it within budget first and get trains running so that the economic forecasts can be improved and updated, then examine the case for upgrading. Not to mention it'd be an island of ETCS, the trains would never reach the possible speed (maintained at an expense, of course) and electrification would prevent cross-working to MetroCentre.

People moan enough about gold-plating the railway, to rebuild a secondary commuter branch line into a full-blown regional mainline would be an utterly ridiculous waste of money.

I want the line to reopen. But the current approach is sub-optimal. As a huge rail fan from East Asia whose county build railways at an ever imagined speed. The current UK railway industry is stretched and failed to dream big. Because the government failed to optimized the investment, the industry lack capacity, and the funding modal is not suitable for massive rail upgrading.

Sending some people to study in Japan about how to properly planning new lines, in Hong Kong to learn about how the railway can be funded, in South Korea to learn how incrementally service can be improved.

By the way, your 50mph 1920 railway's cost per mile is on par with Korea's 180 mph high-speed rail line...

Everybody acknowledges the shortcomings of our railway, the problem is to resolve them is a political problem which the industry isn't in control of. The railway can only work within the framework that exists at the time, not the framework it would like to have.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, that is true, but in infrastructure planning, we always planning in advance not legging behind, upgrading in a single time is cheaper than planning twice.

In 2020s railway is electrified, with proper ETCS signal, and built for much higher speed. A limited budget sounds wise, but in a longer time you will waste more money to upgrade them.

I might agree on ETCS, more likely to if this project was running in five years time.

On electrification this one seems a natural choice for battery trains, that can re-charge themselves on the ECML section.

But for higher speeds you are talking about re-alignment that takes the line well outside its existing boundary, drastically increasing the time, cost and disruption (and this is a "local line for local people" so knocking down their houses probably isn't the best start). All for some occasional diversion or hypothetical new service that might never happen. Major realignments of that type, amounting to brand new sections of route, are actually relatively easy to build on an active railway, as most of them can be built off-line with a short closure to move the tracks where they join the old route.

 

[Bald Rick]

In 2020s railway is electrified, with proper ETCS signal, and built for much higher speed. A limited budget sounds wise, but in a longer time you will waste more money to upgrade them.

It won’t be upgraded anytime soon.

But the current approach is sub-optimal

No it isn’t.

 

[MarkLong]

No it isn’t.

Yes it is, when you planning a new upgrade, think about people who will need to use it for the next 100 years.

But you have to pay that cost upfront. I'm sure most people's mortgages total to more than their final offer, but they didn't have the 6-figure sum to hand.

This isn't a new-build railway - Crossrail and HS2 are exactly that spec, and EWR has 2 of the 3 (and should be electrified, but that's a different thread).

This is an upgrade of an existing Victorian line that is currently operational. The business case is limited by the potential traffic the railway can actually generate. Better to build it within budget first and get trains running so that the economic forecasts can be improved and updated, then examine the case for upgrading. Not to mention it'd be an island of ETCS, the trains would never reach the possible speed (maintained at an expense, of course) and electrification would prevent cross-working to MetroCentre.

People moan enough about gold-plating the railway, to rebuild a secondary commuter branch line into a full-blown regional mainline would be an utterly ridiculous waste of money.


Everybody acknowledges the shortcomings of our railway, the problem is to resolve them is a political problem which the industry isn't in control of. The railway can only work within the framework that exists at the time, not the framework it would like to have.

To be fair, even EWR chooses to keep the 60 mph Bletchley to Bedford section not upgraded to 100 mph, this is not a secondary commenter Branch line. I appreciate UK's railway sector has to work with a limited budget and very expensive cost in many things, in many Asian countries you have infinite resources to upgrade their system. But if we want to economic of scale work, this can not go into this way, we not only need a rolling program of electrification, but a rolling program to upgrade the rural line, a rolling program to reopen axed lines.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes it is, when you planning a new upgrade, think about people who will need to use it for the next 100 years.

How have you made the assessment it is suboptimal?

I made my assessment by reading the options proposed for the line during development, the business cases, the demand studies, knowing the consent supply issues that have to be progressed, and knowing what the political issues are.

 

[MarkLong]

How have you made the assessment it is suboptimal?

I made my assessment by reading the options proposed for the line during development, the business cases, the demand studies, knowing the consent supply issues that have to be progressed, and knowing what the political issues are.

Based on network rail want to have net-zero by 2035, the country wants to have net-zero in 2050, and NR also has a plan to upgrade the signals. And also based on in Korea, Japan, similar counties have very good transportation systems never "upgrade" a line to a maximum of 50 mph.

 

[zwk500]

And UK has not built a significant railway transit project in 20 years, but they built it every year.

The UK has built HS1, which opened in 2007. We've also built Crossrail, and delivered countless other smaller additional pieces of infrastructure.

 

[Bald Rick]

And UK has not built a significant railway transit project in 20 years

Really?

 

[MarkLong]

Really?

Yes, HS1 is only 100 km of the railway line, and the lessons seem not learned by HS2. meanwhile, Korea builds over 1000 km HSR, and more than 20 metro lines in last 10 years, not to mention China have commissioned 10000 km HSR in 2015 alone. Compare to east Asian counties, UK's railway experiences in the last 20 years literally like toys.

 

[Neptune]

This is a short freight line being reopened to passenger traffic. Not HS2.

I’m sure giving the prospective users the choice of no service because the high spec mainline proposals were budget busting or a 50mph diesel operated branch line style service which cuts the time of the bus service they’d otherwise use in half, that’d they’d take the latter.

 

[MarkLong]

The UK has built HS1, which opened in 2007. We've also built Crossrail, and delivered countless other smaller additional pieces of infrastructure.

When you looking to European peers, the new project experiences are already lagging behind. Franch and German/Italy/Spain all have far more projects.

Compare to Asian counties, you know 100 km of HSR in today's Asian they might not even need Central gov's authorization, a city can decide to whether build it.

Yes, UK has a great railway history, but looking at other places to see how far the UK leg behind in this sector.

 

[paul1609]

Newcastle to Ashington is approximately 23 miles. If you built a brand new high speed route between the stations and invested in trains that could instantly accelerate deaccelerate to line speed without any intermediate stops. Ashington would be 14 theoretical mins away with a line speed of 100mph, at 60 mph the journeytime extends to 19 mins. Subtract real physics for the acceleration/ deacceleration, intermediate stops, the geography of the route which uses a number of tight radius curves where it swaps from one to another victorian route, speed limits in the stations and junctions the time saving for 100mph over 50 or 60 must be close to zero.

 

[MarkLong]

This is a short freight line being reopened to passenger traffic. Not HS2.

I’m sure giving the prospective users the choice of no service because the high spec mainline proposals were budget busting or a 50mph diesel operated branch line style service which cuts the time of the bus service they’d otherwise use in half, that’d they’d take the latter.

I agree this project is valuable to local people, every railway is a good railway. It is cleaner, faster, and more reliable than the bus. But UK people should look at how other places do the rail projects, planning in advance, be innovative and bold, just like your Victorian ancesteors.

 

[Swanley 59]

This is a short freight line being reopened to passenger traffic. Not HS2.

I’m sure giving the prospective users the choice of no service because the high spec mainline proposals were budget busting or a 50mph diesel operated branch line style service which cuts the time of the bus service they’d otherwise use in half, that’d they’d take the latter.

Quite. Going from no railway for 60 years (by the time service starts) to a train that does the Ashington - Newcastle journey in 35 mins is a massively positive step.

 

[MarkLong]

Newcastle to Ashington is approximately 23 miles. If you built a brand new high speed route between the stations and invested in trains that could instantly accelerate deaccelerate to line speed without any intermediate stops. Ashington would be 14 theoretical mins away with a line speed of 100mph, at 60 mph the journeytime extends to 19 mins. Subtract real physics for the acceleration/ deacceleration, intermediate stops, the geography of the route which uses a number of tight radius curves where it swaps from one to another victorian route, speed limits in the stations and junctions the time saving for 100mph over 50 or 60 must be close to zero.

But in future, the newer tech will help train to accelerate faster, the development of eco will make the new faster route possible, and you might also extend the service beyond Ashington.

Quite. Going from no railway for 60 years (by the time service starts) to a train that does the Ashington - Newcastle journey in 35 mins is a massively positive step.

I fully understand the motivation, I prise the project, and I would like more service, a 50 mph railway is better than a 20 mph slow bus. But I just did not understand why only upgrade to that standard.

 

[zwk500]

But UK people should look at how other places do the rail projects, planning in advance,

We do

be innovative and bold,

We are when we need to be, but the UK's needs are very different to France, Germany, South Korea, Japan or China

just like your Victorian ancesteors.

Most of whom went bankrupt very quickly.

Why build a totally inappropriate standard of railway simply because other, very different, countries are building HSR? Look at HS1, HS2, Crossrail and the NPR project for what the UK does when it needs to be radical. But this would be akin to building a motorway to a village. It's. Just. Not. Necessary.

But in future, the newer tech will help train to accelerate faster, the development of eco will make the new faster route possible, and you might also extend the service beyond Ashington.

And when it does we will be ready for it. Doing a project in phases isn't a bad plan. This line already has trains running on it, so to upgrade it to your specs we'd need to cancel all the freight traffic while we do so. In the UK, this will probably result in the freight never coming back to the railway.

 

[MarkLong]

We do

We are when we need to be, but the UK's needs are very different to France, Germany, South Korea, Japan or China

Most of whom went bankrupt very quickly.

Why build a totally inappropriate standard of railway simply because other, very different, countries are building HSR? Look at HS1, HS2, Crossrail and the NPR project for what the UK does when it needs to be radical. But this would be akin to building a motorway to a village. It's. Just. Not. Necessary.

And when it does we will be ready for it. Doing a project in phases isn't a bad plan. This line already has trains running on it, so to upgrade it to your specs we'd need to cancel all the freight traffic while we do so. In the UK, this will probably result in the freight never coming back to the railway.

All i am suggesting is this line should not be 50 mph, build at higher speed, with electrification and modern ETCS signals to reduce the cost for upgrading multiple times. But if people insist a 50 mph railway is what they want, fine. Still better than a bus.

 

[zwk500]

All i am suggesting is this line should not be 50 mph, build at higher speed, with electrification and modern ETCS signals to reduce the cost for upgrading multiple times. But if people insist a 50 mph railway is what they want, fine. Still better than a bus.

The only suggestion of 50mph has been somebody suggesting that's what an old DMU would have got to. A modern DMU will probably get easily to 60mph and touch 70mph on longer stretches. You don't need to straighten out the railway but 75mph is perfectly possible standard for an upgrade. Electrification would be nice but it's of limited utility especially given advances in other areas of net zero carbon power.

Specifically with ETCS: you would actually prevent the services that run today from continuing to run by upgrading this line to ETCS while the rest of the country is so far behind. The freight companies haven't got the money to convert every loco, nor can they sustain a specific subfleet for the traffic at Blythe. It will be built to be ETCS-ready, and then when the entire Newcastle area is done, it will be a comparatively simple job. ETCS is on it's way, but it only works as part of a network, not as individual islands.

 

[MarkLong]

The only suggestion of 50mph has been somebody suggesting that's what an old DMU would have got to. A modern DMU will probably get easily to 60mph and touch 70mph on longer stretches. You don't need to straighten out the railway but 75mph is perfectly possible standard for an upgrade. Electrification would be nice but it's of limited utility especially given advances in other areas of net zero carbon power.

Specifically with ETCS: you would actually prevent the services that run today from continuing to run by upgrading this line to ETCS while the rest of the country is so far behind. The freight companies haven't got the money to convert every loco, nor can they sustain a specific subfleet for the traffic at Blythe. It will be built to be ETCS-ready, and then when the entire Newcastle area is done, it will be a comparatively simple job. ETCS is on it's way, but it only works as part of a network, not as individual islands.

Thanks for your explanation.

 

[Neptune]

All i am suggesting is this line should not be 50 mph, build at higher speed, with electrification and modern ETCS signals to reduce the cost for upgrading multiple times. But if people insist a 50 mph railway is what they want, fine. Still better than a bus.

You’ve had the reasons why multiple times.

Your suggestion for the route is akin to buying a space shuttle to do a milk round.

 

[MarkLong]

You’ve had the reasons why multiple times.

Your suggestion for the route is akin to buying a space shuttle to do a milk round.

Alright, I did not expect a suggestion would receive that bullying, sharp, and mean comments. Bye-bye to this forum.

 

[swt_passenger]

The only suggestion of 50mph has been somebody suggesting that's what an old DMU would have got to. A modern DMU will probably get easily to 60mph and touch 70mph on longer stretches. You don't need to straighten out the railway but 75mph is perfectly possible standard for an upgrade. Electrification would be nice but it's of limited utility especially given advances in other areas of net zero carbon power.

Well yes, but it was also clearly stated by the scheme sponsors in the planning stuff. I expect they’re planning for the old DMUs they’ll get cascaded from elsewhere...

 

[zwk500]

Thanks for your explanation.

This article goes into more detail: https://www.railengineer.co.uk/beeching-reversed-reopening-of-the-northumberland-line/

Where possible, line speed will be increased to 65mph.

 

[MarkLong]

This article goes into more detail: https://www.railengineer.co.uk/beeching-reversed-reopening-of-the-northumberland-line/

The helps, thanks again.

 

[Neptune]

Alright, I did not expect a suggestion would receive that bullying, sharp, and mean comments. Bye-bye to this forum.

No bullying whatsoever. The issue is not just here, but on numerous other threads that responses are given to why a posters suggestion either can’t or won’t work and the poster responds to each reason with the response that their idea should happen regardless. There’s only so many ways to explain why certain things cannot or even shouldn’t happen. It gets rather tiresome.

If you feel I was mean and sharp then I apologise but I object strongly to being called a bully.

 

[class26]

All i am suggesting is this line should not be 50 mph, build at higher speed, with electrification and modern ETCS signals to reduce the cost for upgrading multiple times. But if people insist a 50 mph railway is what they want, fine. Still better than a bus.

The distance between stations isn`t great so I would say maybe going to 60 mph would probably be enough. No point going much higher because as soon as top speed is reached you will be braking for the next station.

 

[Bald Rick]

All i am suggesting is this line should not be 50 mph, build at higher speed, with electrification and modern ETCS signals to reduce the cost for upgrading multiple times. But if people insist a 50 mph railway is what they want, fine. Still better than a bus.

It’s not going to be upgraded multiple times. That’s the point.

 

[MarkLong]

It’s not going to be upgraded multiple times. That’s the point.

With all respects. We really do not know, BR removed the second track of Kettering to Corby, "We are not going to use them", but after 30 years NR redouble and electrify this line. Given those communities around this line is on the Newcastle metro area commuting belt. I would think it still likely service needs to be upgraded in the future.

 

[Glenn1969]

I don't because Government views the North as a basket case that requires too much subsidy to be worth the investment. This has been the case for years. Not sure really things have changed. Hence build at the cheapest possible spec they can get away with

 

[zwk500]

With all respects. We really do not know, BR removed the second track of Kettering to Corby, "We are not going to use them", but after 30 years NR redouble and electrify this line. Given those communities around this line is on the Newcastle metro area commuting belt. I would think it still likely service needs to be upgraded in the future.

Most track on the railway has a 30-50 year asset life. I'd call that good planning. Corby 50 years ago was not offering the railway any passenger traffic but lots of freight as it had steelworks and a car plant, both staffed by those living in the town itself. Since those industries shut down the town has started looking outward again and now passenger demand has grown it's justified to put the track back. Reducing the maintenance costs while traffic was low and increasing capacity when demand is high is a responsible business decision.

On the Northumberland line: Economic forecasting has been conducted, and nowadays the models are fairly accurate both for wider impacts and passenger demand for trains. Double track throughout at 60mph, with passive provision for Electrification and ETCS is very sensible given the likely demand for travel and the limitations already described upthread regarding budget and political process in the UK.