Northumberland Line to be re-opened to passengers

[danielnez1]

But that’s really no different to any reopening on an extant route. There’s always going to be a few areas missed by the project, as the area presumably developed without consideration of future reopening. Or alternatively you provide so many stations it impacts badly on line speed for everyone.

Early on in the scheme, it was planned to build a station at Seghill, slightly further south of the original station. It got canned in an attempt to reduce the forecasted journey time form Ashington.

 

[swt_passenger]

Early on in the scheme, it was planned to build a station at Seghill, slightly further south of the original station. It got canned in an attempt to reduce the forecasted journey time form Ashington.

I’d expect there’s always a trade off, you can’t have a station everywhere, and of course now you’ve got higher expectations for level access, parking, security etc etc. I think they’re doing well to get the six stations that are now planned, a couple of years back i think it was going to be done in stages with only four stations at first, and more later “if needed”...

 

[Bald Rick]

With all respects. We really do not know

Some of us know more than others.

 

[paul1609]

Early on in the scheme, it was planned to build a station at Seghill, slightly further south of the original station. It got canned in an attempt to reduce the forecasted journey time form Ashington.

The report actually says that because Seghill and Seaton Deval are so close together (under a mile) only one station should be considered for reopening. I dont know the area but looking on the os map Seghill seems to be a very small village, wikipedia suggests the population is just under 3000. It seems likely that the only reason there was a station there prior to closing was the colliery which has long gone.

 

[Class 170101]

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.

A question on the 60mph point, is that for Freight or Sprinters? I ask because usually Freight at 60mph means Passenger services can run at Higher speeds.

 

[danielnez1]

The report actually says that because Seghill and Seaton Deval are so close together (under a mile) only one station should be considered for reopening. I dont know the area but looking on the os map Seghill seems to be a very small village, wikipedia suggests the population is just under 3000. It seems likely that the only reason there was a station there prior to closing was the colliery which has long gone.

Consideration for two stations was done before the report was made (this has been a long time in the making). While point to point the stations are just over a mile apart, road and foot access is much longer as there are no roads/paths alongside the railway at that point, and the area is surrounded by greenbelt. NCC admitted that Seaton Delaval would be too far away for people to walk to it. The population will be tipped over 3000 now with additional house building, and one of the considerations for Seghill is that it would be within the cachmet for places like Holywell and Annitsford, which are not on the line.

 

[swt_passenger]

A question on the 60mph point, is that for Freight or Sprinters? I ask because usually Freight at 60mph means Passenger services can run at Higher speeds.

The speed of 50 mph I mentioned comes from planning documents, (which cannot be linked to), specifically referring to the passenger service. I think only the rail engineer magazine article, (link in post #173), mentions an aim for 60 mph.

It definitely isn’t double track throughout either, with 3 stations that are only single platform. I suspect that the various passing locations will be designed for a particular timetable and speed profile, there are a few extensions of double track to fit the service in and leave extant freight paths possible.

 

[Anvil1984]

The speed of 50 mph I mentioned comes from planning documents, (which cannot be linked to), specifically referring to the passenger service. I think only the rail engineer magazine article, (link in post #173), mentions an aim for 60 mph.

It definitely isn’t double track throughout either, with 3 stations that are only single platform. I suspect that the various passing locations will be designed for a particular timetable and speed profile, there are a few extensions of double track to fit the service in and leave extant freight paths possible.

Hopefully this works, Page 52 of this 270_Request for a screening opinion_ 260619 (northtyneside.gov.uk), mentions 50mph max with much of the line not able to handle it. But things change, I know a document in 2016 said 55mph max with a graph of the profiles

 

[swt_passenger]

Hopefully this works, Page 52 of this 270_Request for a screening opinion_ 260619 (northtyneside.gov.uk), mentions 50mph max with much of the line not able to handle it. But things change, I know a document in 2016 said 55mph max with a graph of the profiles

Yes, thats just the sort of document I’d read, but the link goes stale. I have the two screening opinion documents downloaded, but they’re too big to attach. There was one in 2019 and an updated version in 2020.

 

[MoleStation]

This is a great discussion, especially about the potential speeds and journey times, but I guess as long as the train is faster than the bus, which it obviously will be, there's no argument really.
My point is - price. I wonder how it will compare to the daily/weekly/monthly bus ticket prices. And could a decent regional day ticket, for example, be a part of it?
I'm hoping the prices will be competitive to really tempt the commuters away from using the bus or driving, and also to keep them using the train.
I reckon this is more of a pertinent point than upgrading the line to a higher speed, as the potential journey time halves the current public transport time in half anyway.

 

[Killingworth]

All this talk of adding more costs. Already it seems there's a real chance that Bebside station is likely to be delayed, postponed or cancelled to save money.

Northumberland rail line is being cut before work has even begun

Planned Blyth Bebside station is likely to be axed as part of Department for Transport drive to cut costs

www.chroniclelive.co.uk

 

[XAM2175]

I'm hoping the prices will be competitive to really tempt the commuters away from using the bus or driving, and also to keep them using the train.

I'm hoping that one day we'll all manage to move on from considering different modes of public transport to be in competition with each other.

 

[Swanley 59]

I'm hoping that one day we'll all manage to move on from considering different modes of public transport to be in competition with each other.

I agree, but I don't think it will ever happen.

The impact of historic bus competition on passenger services on the Blyth & Tyne routes is laid bare by the table on the disused stations site (Disused Stations - Ashington). Between 1911 and 1951, before widespread car ownership, the number of tickets issued at Ashington fell by nearly 85%!

 

[PR1Berske]

All this talk of adding more costs. Already it seems there's a real chance that Bebside station is likely to be delayed, postponed or cancelled to save money.

Northumberland rail line is being cut before work has even begun

Planned Blyth Bebside station is likely to be axed as part of Department for Transport drive to cut costs

www.chroniclelive.co.uk

Was just about to link that story here. Certainly looks like it's something which was announced with loud volume and now backtracked/curtailed with whispers.

From the article:

New stations were planned at Ashington, Bedlington, Blyth Bebside, Newsham and Seaton Delaval. Trains will connect with the Metro at Northumberland Park, in North Tyneside.

But the Government has ordered a review of new rail projects, which it says is designed to cut costs and ensure they can be delivered sooner.


In a meeting with Treasury officials and Andrew Gilligan, Boris Johnson's transport adviser, officials from Northumberland County Council were told to find cost savings. Options included cutting passenger services from two trains per hour to one, or cutting a planned station.

 

[Spartacus]

But wasn’t it always planned as an hourly service in phase one, with Bebside and Seaton Delaval always being planned as later additions? I never expected the ‘big bang’ reopening with half hourly services that was mooted in a short article and jumped upon was ever likely. Sounds like newspaper mischief making to me.

 

[swt_passenger]

But wasn’t it always planned as an hourly service in phase one, with Bebside and Seaton Delaval always being planned as later additions? I never expected the ‘big bang’ reopening with half hourly services that was mooted in a short article and jumped upon was ever likely. Sounds like newspaper mischief making to me.

The 2019 environmental scoping opinion was for a four phase construction, it showed postponement of sections of the doubling until later phases, however building the couple of stations you mention was in the second phase of the four. Then the summer 2020 version of the same document proudly announced that it was now merged into one single phase project; however DfT were yet to agree the timescales. (Suspicious in itself of course.)

So it wasn’t really just a short article, it had been clearly reflected in the rewritten planning stuff. The reissued “have your say” consultation from autumn 2020 (link in post #58), was also written on the basis of one phase only.

 

[paul1609]

Consideration for two stations was done before the report was made (this has been a long time in the making). While point to point the stations are just over a mile apart, road and foot access is much longer as there are no roads/paths alongside the railway at that point, and the area is surrounded by greenbelt. NCC admitted that Seaton Delaval would be too far away for people to walk to it. The population will be tipped over 3000 now with additional house building, and one of the considerations for Seghill is that it would be within the cachmet for places like Holywell and Annitsford, which are not on the line.

That doesn't make much sense to be honest. Holywell which isn't a huge place either is according to Google Maps closer to Seaton Delavel than Seghill and its only 0.2 miles further to Shiremoor metro station. Annitsford has a direct express bus link (X8 Max) to Newcastle scheduled for 23 mins. Its 3 miles from Cramlington or 1.7 from Seghill stations. I cant imagine that many people commute fron Annitsford to Ashington which is the only traffic that a station at Seghill would be useful for.

 

[Mollman]

I'm hoping that one day we'll all manage to move on from considering different modes of public transport to be in competition with each other.

Unfortunately you need to tell the politicians - most new railway proposals are brought with MP or Cllr saying "the bus is rubbish we need a railway" then the railway opens and the bus gets cut because the paying passengers move to the quicker train. Said MP or Cllr then says "why is the bus service being cut?"

 

[Killingworth]

Concerns about scaling back should be eased after a visit to Blyth on 22nd April by Chris Heaton-Harris. He specifically committed to all 6 stations including Bebside, and that the full project should be delivered on time in 2024 and to budget, see Northumberland Gazette;

Minister confirms six stations planned for new Northumberland Line

The six stations on the planned new Northumbrland Line have been confirmed by the Department for Transport.

www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk

 

[Snow1964]

The Transport and Works Act Order has been updated today on Dft website

Northumberland Line: Transport and Works Act order

Approval to reintroduce passenger rail services to the existing railway line between Ashington in the County of Northumberland and Newcastle.

www.gov.uk

The update

1. 27 May 2021
   Notice of application from Pinsent Masons to provide powers to re-introduce passenger rail services.

Northumberland Line - Northumberland County Council

Northumberland Line (rail) and Blyth Relief Road.

www.northumberland.gov.uk

This has links to various maps (24 sheets), Rights of Way (16 sheets) and various other documents

 

[BrianW]

The Transport and Works Act Order has been updated today on Dft website

Northumberland Line: Transport and Works Act order

Approval to reintroduce passenger rail services to the existing railway line between Ashington in the County of Northumberland and Newcastle.

www.gov.uk

The update

1. 27 May 2021
   Notice of application from Pinsent Masons to provide powers to re-introduce passenger rail services.

Northumberland Line - Northumberland County Council

Northumberland Line (rail) and Blyth Relief Road.

www.northumberland.gov.uk

This has links to various maps (24 sheets), Rights of Way (16 sheets) and various other documents

WHY does all this 'guff' have to be produced? Is there a review anywhere of the benefits (and costs!) of the Transport & Works procedures?
Perhaps then Pinsent could refocus on rowing?

 

[snowball]

WHY does all this 'guff' have to be produced? Is there a review anywhere of the benefits (and costs!) of the Transport & Works procedures?
Perhaps then Pinsent could refocus on rowing?

Because it's the law.

 

[Bald Rick]

WHY does all this 'guff' have to be produced? Is there a review anywhere of the benefits (and costs!) of the Transport & Works procedures?
Perhaps then Pinsent could refocus on rowing?

Because if you want to use someone else’s land, they might want to have a say in it.

Or put another way, if someone wanted to build a railway across your garden, or a road, or a power station, or a wind farm, etc, would you just say ‘go on then’ ?

 

[edwin_m]

There's a good reason for consultation and legal process in a democracy. But I'd question why a local rail scheme has to go to Whitehall for the necessary powers when a road scheme that might have far more impact can be agreed at local level.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There's a good reason for consultation and legal process in a democracy. But I'd question why a local rail scheme has to go to Whitehall for the necessary powers when a road scheme that might have far more impact can be agreed at local level.

Is it because this particular rail scheme will be connected to the national rail network?

 

[swt_passenger]

Is it because this particular rail scheme will be connected to the national rail network?

No, it’s just because over many years TWA order applications have been developed into the specialist way of applying for this level of railway improvements. London Underground have used TWA for schemes solely in their network such as Battersea extension and Bank station upgrade.

But I think it’s wrong in an earlier post to say that most roads are dealt with locally, many road applications go for something called a Development Consent Order from the Planning Inspectorate. (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects)

 

[Brissle Girl]

But I think it’s wrong in an earlier post to say that most roads are dealt with locally, many road applications go for something called a Development Consent Order from the Planning Inspectorate. (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects)

That's the process the Portishead reopening is grinding it's way through currently, though how reinstatement of a 3 mile branch (which was still in situ albeit overgrown and obviously needing full reconstruction) counts as a project of national significance is completely beyond me.

 

[BrianW]

Because it's the law.

Laws can be reviewed, revised and rescinded. Regulations can be changed. I'm saying it's disproportionate.
Does the fact that passenger services used to run there and that the line still exists count for nothing?
I note in passing how the mere intensification of rail services through the Wolvercote tunnel to facilitate better Oxford-London connectivity took years to get approval. It's 'bats' if I might put it that way.

Because if you want to use someone else’s land, they might want to have a say in it.

Or put another way, if someone wanted to build a railway across your garden, or a road, or a power station, or a wind farm, etc, would you just say ‘go on then’ ?

Of course I want to have my say and better still my way, but not at everyone else's expense. I don't suppose Pinsents are doing this for free, or pro bono as they may put it- maybe I'm wrong. We are paying for that. I don't imagine the costs of objectors willl be paid from public funds, nor do I suggest they should be. Surely 'the common good' should trump my view and that of other well-off self-serving objectors?

Again I ask how much is this process costing in time and money and to what beneficial effect?

 

[Bald Rick]

Of course I want to have my say and better still my way, but not at everyone else's expense.

So, if someone rocked up to build a railway through your house, and you wanted to object, who’s expense should it be at?

 

[WesternLancer]

Laws can be reviewed, revised and rescinded. Regulations can be changed. I'm saying it's disproportionate.
Does the fact that passenger services used to run there and that the line still exists count for nothing?
I note in passing how the mere intensification of rail services through the Wolvercote tunnel to facilitate better Oxford-London connectivity took years to get approval. It's 'bats' if I might put it that way.

Of course I want to have my say and better still my way, but not at everyone else's expense. I don't suppose Pinsents are doing this for free, or pro bono as they may put it- maybe I'm wrong. We are paying for that. I don't imagine the costs of objectors willl be paid from public funds, nor do I suggest they should be. Surely 'the common good' should trump my view and that of other well-off self-serving objectors?

Again I ask how much is this process costing in time and money and to what beneficial effect?

I've not studied the obligations in relation to what are essentially proposals (say) to reinstate passenger services onto lines that are substantially there - albeit perhaps in a state of unuse in some cases (Portishead branch?)
Looks like there was a chance a few years ago to make the case that such stuff is over onerous:

Red Tape Challenge

The government has launched The Red Tape Challenge website, challenging the public to help cut unnecessary regulations.

www.gov.uk

Problem seems to me that for everyone who says "they" should just get on with it there is someone else who says "they" shouldn't be allowed to just do such and such without proper consultation....

There has certainly been criticism in the UK of the time taken ahead of infrastructure proposal for things like public inquiries, scrutiny, consultation etc etc adding to time and costs. And some of that is perhaps fair criticism, but it has been a growing element of the democratic process. Having said that it seems to me that thing often gets done anyway, so the price can simply look like the price of going through the motions.

I recall a radio programme a few years ago (marking maybe 50th anniversary?) about the building of the 1st section of the M1 and the time being very short between ministerial decision to build and bulldozers on site. The UK was not a dictatorship in the 1950s but I bet the way things were done then would not be considered anything like as acceptable today, rightly or wrongly.