Northumberland Line to be re-opened to passengers

[Bald Rick]

Are there any enhancements planned for the ECML between Benton Quarry Junction and Manors to cope with the additional traffic?

No.

 

[trebor79]

Are there any enhancements planned for the ECML between Benton Quarry Junction and Manors to cope with the additional traffic?

As well as the Northumberland Line trains, there are plans for an expanded Transpennine Service (Evening Chronicle article) due in the December timetable, and of course as the "Lumo" open access services to thread through this congested stretch of track.

The solution is obviously the reopening of the Border Counties route via Redesmouth and Riccarton Junction, and reinstating more of the Waverly route to Galashiels.

 

[swt_passenger]

Are there any enhancements planned for the ECML between Benton Quarry Junction and Manors to cope with the additional traffic?

As well as the Northumberland Line trains, there are plans for an expanded Transpennine Service (Evening Chronicle article) due in the December timetable, and of course as the "Lumo" open access services to thread through this congested stretch of track.

Nothing about enhancements to the main line section between Benton and Central has ever been published by the Northumberland Line promoters.

 

[Class 170101]

With a half hourly service planned, surely the most effective way on increasing capacity would be train lengthening?

The constraint on capacity is the ECML, not the Northumberland line. It’s going to be tricky enough to get 2tph extra onto the ECML as it is.

Would it help extending the Morpeth's to cover some of the new stations if capacity becomes a problem?

 

[Darandio]

Would it help extending the Morpeth's to cover some of the new stations if capacity becomes a problem?

The Morpeth services would only share the line with the new services on the ECML section, there aren't any new stations being built there.

 

[Class 170101]

The Morpeth services would only share the line with the new services on the ECML section, there aren't any new stations being built there.

Extend north from Morpeth to join south of Ashington maybe?

 

[Darandio]

Extend north from Morpeth to join south of Ashington maybe?

Going north from Morpeth the only way would be to immediately join the Blyth & Tyne then reverse at Bedlington to get to Ashington. I don't think that part of the Blyth & Tyne was even considered for a upgrade for passenger service.

 

[adrock1976]

The Morpeth services would only share the line with the new services on the ECML section, there aren't any new stations being built there.

Is it via the Morpeth end or via Northumberland Park that the Ashington trains would normally run?

I have previously seen reports that they could run from both sides.

EDIT: I have seen your post above mine.

 

[bramling]

Going north from Morpeth the only way would be to immediately join the Blyth & Tyne then reverse at Bedlington to get to Ashington. I don't think that part of the Blyth & Tyne was even considered for a upgrade for passenger service.

In theory there is an alignment via Butterwell to Ashington, but this is now derelict. I’m not sure part of it was even owned by BR/NR.

By this way it would theoretically be possible to operate a circular service via Morpeth and Ashington, though this would preclude any extension to Newbiggin.

 

[Killingworth]

In theory there is an alignment via Butterwell to Ashington, but this is now derelict. I’m not sure part of it was even owned by BR/NR.

By this way it would theoretically be possible to operate a circular service via Morpeth and Ashington, though this would preclude any extension to Newbiggin.

But would still congest the ECML, probably more so.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

No.

As Benton Nth Jcn is single leads spread out over a fair distance with speeds of 30mph followed by 25mph onto the branch currently a Down working is going to take 90s to clear so for planning purposes thats at least 3 mins for each move so 6 mins out of each hour. In the Up direction it will be 2mins per move or 4 mins and as parallel moves can't take place so 10mins in each hour. Then there are freights scheduled during the day as well so this section is going to introduce performance issues but presumably the 2022 timetable as was had built these services into the proposed timetable?

 

[IanXC]

At the risk of going off topic, should the TPE Newcastle - Edinburgh service end up becoming an hourly service (and the southbound Cramlington calls be resolved), there is an argument that the Northern Newcastle - Morpeth could be withdrawn. Clearly the single lead onto the Northumberland Line is always going to be the major constraint, but this might at least alleviate the issue a little at the margins.

 

[Class 170101]

At the risk of going off topic, should the TPE Newcastle - Edinburgh service end up becoming an hourly service (and the southbound Cramlington calls be resolved), there is an argument that the Northern Newcastle - Morpeth could be withdrawn. Clearly the single lead onto the Northumberland Line is always going to be the major constraint, but this might at least alleviate the issue a little at the margins.

Frankly yes I would agree with you and I would expect it release pressure on the southern section where the Northumberland line joins the ECML. The TPE service can be electric throughout subject to power supply issues rather than using a 75mph DMU.

 

[bramling]

But would still congest the ECML, probably more so.

Indeed. I was working on the basis that this *could* be an option, rather than *should* be. I tend to agree with the view that an hourly Newcastle to Edinburgh stopping service, if it ever happens, should mean the Morpeth services are no longer required, though there might be some kick-back at the loss of direct services to that horrific place known as the MetroCentre!

 

[IanXC]

Indeed. I was working on the basis that this *could* be an option, rather than *should* be. I tend to agree with the view that an hourly Newcastle to Edinburgh stopping service, if it ever happens, should mean the Morpeth services are no longer required, though there might be some kick-back at the loss of direct services to that horrific place known as the MetroCentre!

The aborted May 2021 timetable included very nearly all Northern services terminating at Newcastle anyway, and I certainly didn't see any kick back on this issue.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Public Enquiry due to start on 9th November see here for documents and details

Why it needs a public enquiry is beyond me its a working railway line. Having to getting planning permission for stations is farcical enough should be covered by NR's permitted developments but I guess car parks and road access is outside of NRs boundaries.

No wonder it cost so much and takes so long to get railways reopened can't see them doing than a couple per decade at this rate even if they have the money.

 

[WesternLancer]

Public Enquiry due to start on 9th November see here for documents and details

Why it needs a public enquiry is beyond me its a working railway line. Having to getting planning permission for stations is farcical enough should be covered by NR's permitted developments but I guess car parks and road access is outside of NRs boundaries.

No wonder it cost so much and takes so long to get railways reopened can't see them doing than a couple per decade at this rate even if they have the money.

Thanks for link.
This is presumably so the residents of Fenwick Close (and others too perhaps) can submit 18 pages of objections to the project, raise lots of what ifs and seek to increase the project costs via compo requests....

Tho I assume it's ultimately because the law of the land requires one to be held, so held it must be. Does seem bizarre tho when it's a line that is already there!

https://gat04-live-1517c8a4486c41609369c68f30c8-aa81074.divio-media.org/filer_public/42/9d/429d25db-5bff-458f-a9b1-eaf3f68fe4d2/ncc_new_train_line_-_fenwick_close_objections.pdf

Given that we are still unsure about the actual duration of the works, adding in the uncertainty around the proposed drilling work, owners are very concerned about the potential effect it will have on the value of their flats. Particularly, throughout the period from now until the construction work is complete, will owners be able to sell their flats. The same applies to rental, will people be willing to take on tenancies agreement at the current market value or will they seek rent deductions. Similarly will existing tenants seek rent reductions, or worse seek to cancel their agreements when faced with this sort of disruption? We feel, at the very least a specific compensation scheme should be set up whereby it is easy for owners to apply to seek redress,

I assume that if the existence of the railway line raises the value of these properties the owners will be hurrying to request a Council tax re-valuation so they can pay back the govt in similar terms?

 

[Starmill]

Public Enquiry due to start on 9th November see here for documents and details

Why it needs a public enquiry is beyond me its a working railway line. Having to getting planning permission for stations is farcical enough should be covered by NR's permitted developments but I guess car parks and road access is outside of NRs boundaries.

No wonder it cost so much and takes so long to get railways reopened can't see them doing than a couple per decade at this rate even if they have the money.

A public inquiry isn't always required as part of applications for Orders under the Transport & Works Act, but if it is, the Inspector must make their report thorough and fair and only then can there be a decision.

There are so many objections to taking over this amount of land for everything from construction compounds to new car parks and highway access that an inquiry is a sensible way to proceed.

 

[BrianW]

Public Enquiry due to start on 9th November see here for documents and details

Why it needs a public enquiry is beyond me its a working railway line. Having to getting planning permission for stations is farcical enough should be covered by NR's permitted developments but I guess car parks and road access is outside of NRs boundaries.

No wonder it cost so much and takes so long to get railways reopened can't see them doing than a couple per decade at this rate even if they have the money.

Reminds me of Wolvercote tunnel on the Oxford- Bicester line. Months (years?) of delay due to bats being affected by intensification of service. You couldn't make it up. There would be no bats in the tunnel had the tunnel not been built in the first place.
'Consultations' 'enquiries' etc all give scope for Nimbys to delay and push up costs. Does anyone have a figure on the scale of such costs?
Acts of Parliament can be amended, even repealed, when it suits government to allocate time.

 

[Starmill]

Acts of Parliament can be amended, even repealed, when it suits government to allocate time.

They can also be used to give powers to build railways. Such as on HS2, or the Jubilee Line extension.

 

[MotCO]

So you need a public inquiry to open an existing railway line, but you don't for Council led road schemes which narrow roads, increases congestion and pollution all so that a few cyclists might use a cycle path (but they don't).
Apols for being off topic, (it's happened where I live) but there should be some sense of proportion. The only benefit I can see is if the public actually make valid points which the developers have not considered, which improves the overall scheme.

 

[Starmill]

So you need a public inquiry to open an existing railway line, but you don't for Council led road schemes which narrow roads, increases congestion and pollution all so that a few cyclists might use a cycle path (but they don't).
Apols for being off topic, (it's happened where I live) but there should be some sense of proportion. The only benefit I can see is if the public actually make valid points which the developers have not considered, which improves the overall scheme.

As ever, if your most valuable asset were to be reduced in value, or access to your home restricted, or part of your land compulsory purchased, you'd want the safeguards that exist in place to benefit from them.

Cycle lanes have nothing to do with it. But as it happens narrowing urban road lanes for motorised vehicles is a good thing because it keeps roads safer and easier to use.

 

[WesternLancer]

As ever, if your most valuable asset were to be reduced in value, or access to your home restricted, or part of your land compulsory purchased, you'd want the safeguards that exist in place to benefit from them.

Cycle lanes have nothing to do with it. But as it happens narrowing urban road lanes for motorised vehicles is a good thing because it keeps roads safer and easier to use.

I do think the PI process is odd tho if it's not a new line (your point about the cycle lane is spot on, as it's a re-allocation of existing road space amongst users not a substantial bit of new infrastructure - same been done to a road near my house FWIW) - but is the proposal with Northumberland line such alterations of infrastructure on a scale enough to require this? eg new station builds?

You can bet they would not be doing a PI if they did not have to do so.

 

[Starmill]

I do think the PI process is odd tho if it's not a new line (your point about the cycle lane is spot on, as it's a re-allocation of existing road space amongst users not a substantial bit of new infrastructure - same been done to a road near my house FWIW) - but is the proposal with Northumberland line such alterations of infrastructure on a scale enough to require this? eg new station builds?

You can bet they would not be doing a PI if they did not have to do so.

Or that holding the inquiry is more cost effective and offers greater certainty over time scale than attempting to buy out the objections.

 

[swt_passenger]

I thought I’d copy something from the application letter, although I think it’s been mentioned before (at the end of May) most of the new stations are covered by normal planning applications. They are also using permitted development rights where permitted.

The primary works required for the Project are proposed to be authorised separately, by way of planning permissions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or through the exercise of permitted development rights.

The proposed Order would confer on the Applicant a number of powers in connection with the implementation of these works, including a power to compulsorily acquire land and rights over land, temporarily use land for construction works, close level crossings over the railway, and temporarily and permanently stop up and divert highways.

The proposed Order would also authorise a limited range of ancillary works required in connection with the Project, including the formation of temporary worksites and haul roads, new and improved means of access and the laying out of new public rights of way.

https://gat04-live-1517c8a4486c41609369c68f30c8-aa81074.divio-media.org/filer_public/b8/9b/b89bedfd-29b2-47dc-9c97-a488e7ebd64e/app00_application_covering_letter.pdf

Four of the new stations, ie Ashington, Northumberland Park, Bedlington and Seaton Delaval have already had planning approval. The thing is they have all got much larger footprints than what came before. They mostly need car parking because they aren’t necessarily in the middle of the respective catchments.

 

[snowball]

The public inquiry is required because there have been objections to the draft order under the Transport & Works Act. My impression from a quick look at some of the documents is that the main reason why the T&WA order is required in this case, is the alterations to level crossings.

 

[Pinza-C55]

The solution is obviously the reopening of the Border Counties route via Redesmouth and Riccarton Junction, and reinstating more of the Waverly route to Galashiels.

That was suggested maybe 25 years ago to take timber traffic out of Reedsmouth. Seriously.

It’s being re-opened with a half-hourly service, something many communities around the country will be very envious of. And still there’s disappointment that it’s not an even more extensive (and expensive) project!

My understanding of the Borders Line (and I am sure I will be told I am wrong on this) is that the actual traffic exceeded the projected traffic and that since many of the new bridges and so on were built to single track clearances, this will cause enormous expense if doubling is ever considered. With that in mind it would be prudent to learn from previous mistakes and make sure that new structures on this line don't interfere with future redoubling.

 

[swt_passenger]

With that in mind it would be prudent to learn from previous mistakes and make sure that new structures on this line don't interfere with future redoubling.

There’s a greater proportion of existing double track here than there was on the Borders line. The high majority of new over-rail structures here are footbridges to replace minor level crossings. The only significant new road bridge I can find, at Newsham, is on a two track section.

Between Northumberland Park and Ashington all existing overbridges are double track. The only section that would be an obvious problem for redoubling is probably the stretch alongside the Metro where there are a couple of modern bridges that are sized for a 2 track Metro and single NR layout.

 

[inais20]

The solution is obviously the reopening of the Border Counties route via Redesmouth and Riccarton Junction, and reinstating more of the Waverly route to Galashiels.

To be fair I reckon there’s at least a partial case to be made just for the leisure/tourism market in and around Kielder. Then you’ve also got the logging freight which I think someone else mentioned.

Obviously a new route would need to be found for the bit of line now under the water but not impossible if the will and money could be found.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

That was suggested maybe 25 years ago to take timber traffic out of Reedsmouth. Seriously.



My understanding of the Borders Line (and I am sure I will be told I am wrong on this) is that the actual traffic exceeded the projected traffic and that since many of the new bridges and so on were built to single track clearances, this will cause enormous expense if doubling is ever considered. With that in mind it would be prudent to learn from previous mistakes and make sure that new structures on this line don't interfere with future redoubling.

There was a proposal to reopen the Border Counties line from Kielder to Riccarton, and from there a reopened Waverley line to Longtown, for the purposes of timber extraction but I don't recall ever hearing of plans to go via Reedsmouth.

The actual traffic on the Borders line pre-covid was one train per half hour except evenings and Sundays, when it was one train per hour. This was exactly what was projected, albeit that passenger numbers were far higher than predicted.
The trains did (eventually) get longer. There's no need to consider additional doubling unless the service pattern is changed.