Speeding up Newcastle-Morpeth(-Chathill) stoppers: Any options?

[najaB]

The idea of re-opening a branch to Seahouses (population: 1500) is a corker mind

Surely if any branch in that part of the world were to re-open it would have to be Alnwick?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Surely if any branch in that part of the world were to re-open it would have to be Alnwick?

The trackbed is built on in Alnwick, there's pretty much zero chance of Alnwick seeing trains ever again.

Also we'd have to lose Barter Books

 

[najaB]

The trackbed is built on in Alnwick, there's pretty much zero chance of Alnwick seeing trains ever again.

There's nothing saying the station has to be on the same site as the old one. A simple one-platform station the other side of the A1 with a covered bridge to a car-park/bus terminus built on the 'town' side wouldn't be prohibitively expensive.

 

[deltic08]

Just a note - the morning train runs in service from Newcastle at 05.55 to Chathill, and is the first train to call at Cramlington, Morpeth and Alnmouth. Stabling overnight would mean that a driver and guard would have to travel up in a van early in the morning. However I agree if the line was extended back to Seahouses it could increase usage, especially during the summer.

I don't know what the crewing arrangement is on Borders rail but DMUs stable overnight at Tweedbank. Seahouses is no further from Newcastle than Tweedbank from Edinburgh.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The number of passengers would increase from those stations with currently a rubbish service if they had a decent level of service (I.e. not two trains a day). Maybe the EMU stoppers could be timetabled to be looped in some of the freight loops, wiring them up if needed. Running the EMUs from Edinburgh early morning and late at night.

Then it will free up the intercity stuff so they can call at Berwick only.

Exactly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

oh dear..............



Whilst i am sure that was a throw away comment there is some commercial sense in the suggestion, which is why you don't like it! The number of people involved off set against being able to free up both crews and units for other services and the reduction in infrastructure maintenance could make such a suggestion attractive.

I ma not suggesting i support such a move, just that there could be some commercial sense in exploring it.




not in the railway world it couldn't. That cant be a serious suggestion.



Surely the fact it is in the middle of a albeit very attractive nowhere is the main growth inhibitor

I mean I like Seahouses, it is fantastic and has a great fish shop, is picturesque, delightful, almost twee but it has about c.2,000 lucky residents........



Stick a 0 on that end of that estimate and you might be closer to the truth. I think we would all like the prices to be so low and perhaps they should be, but they aren't for all manner of reasons



I would like to see a better service on this section of line, at least between the bigger towns, and think EMU's will offer that in due course. I just don't think you will ever vastly increase passenger numbers at places like Acklington, Widdrington, Chathill, due to their isolated, rural and underpopulated locations.

Pegswood could have a chance as a link to Ashington if transport links don't adequately join up Morpeth and Ashington but then there is a good bus service direct form Ashington to Newcastle. The X21 ( i think it is) does the trip in under an hour.



The loops are wired up although the various sidings and Chevington, Alnmouth and Belford are not being used as they are mainly for OTM stabling. The exchange sidings, or at least their remains, at Widdrington are not wired.

PS: I realise that this is an stereotypical anti rail " hyena" post so please accept my apologies but I thought I might try to enter some real world realism to the discussion.

All negativity. Had Beeching been allowed to close Newcastle-Edinburgh as planned where would we be today. He had little vision as you do.

It is less than four miles of slow speed single track. Well worth looking at to solve more than one problem at once.

£500,000 for one hundred yards of 25kv trolley wiring? Get real. Half a mile could be done for that.

Always exaggerating the facts to make it worse than it is and to discredit those who put forward valid suggestions.

 

[DarloRich]

I don't know what the crewing arrangement is on Borders rail but DMUs stable overnight at Tweedbank. Seahouses is no further from Newcastle than Tweedbank from Edinburgh.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Exactly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


All negativity. Had Beeching been allowed to close Newcastle-Edinburgh as planned where would we be today. He had little vision as you do.

It is less than four miles of slow speed single track. Well worth looking at to solve more than one problem at once.

£500,000 for one hundred yards of 25kv trolley wiring? Get real. Half a mile could be done for that.

Always exaggerating the facts to make it worse than it is and to discredit those who put forward valid suggestions.

I expected any disagreement to be met with the usual tirade of sillyness. Did you read what I wrote? Please point me to the area within my post where I suggested any support for closing this railway line?

You may believe what you like cost wise. I am happy that my experience in the railway world suggests otherwise. Your suggested £50k would barely cover the costs of materials let alone labour. That is before you consider design, delivery, construction, trackwork, signalling, HSEA, CDM and integration into the existing network and all of the possessions required to facilitate that work. But what would I know?

 

[deltic08]

I'm not sure where you get that idea from. As part of the new Northern franchise, "the MetroCentre will have 42 trains per day to and from Newcastle, 30 trains per day to and from Hexham, 28 trains per day to and from Carlisle, and at least 12 trains per day to and from each of Sunderland and Morpeth." So essentially maintaining the current level of service but with additional direct trains to and from Carlisle as a result of the doubling of frequency west of Hexham. The MetroCentre will also be upgraded to a Northern Connect branded and managed station.

As such, splitting the Morpeth - Metrocentre service at Newcastle might be more politically complex under the upcoming Northern franchise than this thread is suggesting.

That means electrifying Newcastle-Metrocentre if EMUs are to be used on Morpeth/Chathill services which is a no-no.

 

[najaB]

That means electrifying Newcastle-Metrocentre if EMUs are to be used on Morpeth/Chathill services which is a no-no.

Why is it a no-no? It's just over 3 miles (half of which is already wired) so surely can't be that expensive?

 

[Tetchytyke]

That means electrifying Newcastle-Metrocentre if EMUs are to be used on Morpeth/Chathill services which is a no-no.

You're all up for re-opening a long-gone railway line to a sleepy village in the middle of nowhwere, but electrifying a short amount of railway is a "no-no". Utterly bizarre.

Electrifying to the MetroCentre would be very straightforward, it's only a couple of miles and there are no tunnels or bridges that would require much alteration.

There's nothing saying the station has to be on the same site as the old one. A simple one-platform station the other side of the A1 with a covered bridge to a car-park/bus terminus built on the 'town' side wouldn't be prohibitively expensive.

True, though in that case the station wouldn't be in Alnwick and almost the whole point of re-opening- avoiding the short drive to Alnmouth- would be lost.

 

[deltic08]

Surely if any branch in that part of the world were to re-open it would have to be Alnwick?

Unfortunately, the connection at Alnmouth was north facing and would complicate operations if a train was travelling south to Newcastle. It would also have to cross under the dualled A1 to access Alnwick town centre and former station yard.

These complications aren't present at Chathill as the trackbed to Seahouses is totally undeveloped and only a mile much longer than to Alnwick. A facing crossover is already installed for accessing the branch from the south.

 

[najaB]

These complications aren't present at Chathill as the trackbed to Seahouses is totally undeveloped and only a mile much longer than to Alnwick. A facing crossover is already installed for accessing the branch from the south.

You raise good points, but I'll counter them with the main complication with Seahouses - near enough nobody to actually use the trains!

 

[deltic08]

Why is it a no-no? It's just over 3 miles (half of which is already wired) so surely can't be that expensive?

Not factual. Not even halfway to Dunstan is wired. Barely a quarter of Newcastle-Metrocentre is currently electrified. Only as far as King Edward Bridge Junction where the Carlisle line diverges from the ECML.

 

[najaB]

Not factual. Not even halfway to Dunstan is wired. Barely a quarter of Newcastle-Metrocentre is currently electrified. Only as far as King Edward Bridge Junction where the Carlisle line diverges from the ECML.

Sorry, I used Norwood Jn instead of King Edward Bridge South Jn. Still, it's 2 miles 56 chains so more or less the same amount of wiring required as the single track to Seahouses. Why is it a no-go?

 

[deltic08]

You raise good points, but I'll counter them with the main complication with Seahouses - near enough nobody to actually use the trains!

Have you done a study to verify this fact before dismissing it? Nobody knows.
A more convenient rail head in Seahouses would encourage locals to use the service but also bring visitors into the resort.

Usage of two trains per day is low because it is unattractive. Easy to say withdraw and put a bus on but that is the usual negative attitude of many on this site towards rail. I am surprised numbers are as high as they are.

I just suggested a relatively cheap possibility of increasing usage of the Newcastle-Chathill service and providing a siding, albeit a 4 mile long siding, to allow turnround at Chathill off the Up main.

 

[najaB]

I just suggested a relatively cheap possibility of increasing usage of the Newcastle-Chathill service and providing a siding, albeit a 4 mile long siding, to allow turnround at Chathill off the Up main.

Even cheaper - a 300 yard long siding.

Are there enough people who would use a station at Seahouses, but for whom Chathill is too far away for it to be worth building that 4 mile long siding?

 

[sprinterguy]

That means electrifying Newcastle-Metrocentre if EMUs are to be used on Morpeth/Chathill services

And hence why EMUs are highly unlikely to be used on the Morpeth/Chathill local services during the tenure of the forthcoming Arriva Northern franchise.

Although that still permits that electrification to the Metrocentre far more likely to happen than reopening the branch to Seahouses...

 

[deltic08]

Sorry, I used Norwood Jn instead of King Edward Bridge South Jn. Still, it's 2 miles 56 chains so more or less the same amount of wiring required as the single track to Seahouses. Why is it a no-go?

I have already put this to the Chair of the Electrification Task Force, MP for Harrogate Andrew Jones, and had a negative reply. ( He is hostile to reinstating to Ripon also. Should not be an under secretary of transport with that attitude as he refuses to listen to the argument) Newcastle-Carlisle electrification is a very low priority with Metrocentre having to wait until then unless the local authority wishes to pay for it as a one off.

Also electrification to the Metrocentre would not increase usage of the ECML stopper but extension to Seahouses would. Railheads have to be local to a settlement and not four miles away where parking is restricted.

 

[najaB]

Also electrification to the Metrocentre would not increase usage of the ECML stopper but extension to Seahouses would. Railheads have to be local to a settlement and not four miles away where parking is restricted.

Then build an electrified turnback siding/bay platform at Chathill and terminate the stopper at Newcastle. 95% of the benefit for 50% of the cost of electrifying Metrocentre and reinstating and electrifying the branch to Seahouses.

 

[Tetchytyke]

A more convenient rail head in Seahouses would encourage locals to use the service

There are no locals. Seagulls and sheep have no need for the train.

 

[swt_passenger]

Unfortunately, the connection at Alnmouth was north facing and would complicate operations if a train was travelling south to Newcastle...

It definitely was not, through services ran Newcastle to Alnwick before closure..

 

[najaB]

It definitely was not, through services ran Newcastle to Alnwick before closure..

Oh, wait, I missed that one. You can look on Google maps and see what direction the connection faced!

 

[deltic08]

It definitely was not, through services ran Newcastle to Alnwick before closure..

You are correct, temporary lapse of concentration.

 

[backontrack]

The trackbed is built on in Alnwick, there's pretty much zero chance of Alnwick seeing trains ever again.

Also we'd have to lose Barter Books

Cough, cough...

http://www.alnvalleyrailway.co.uk/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alnwick_branch_line#Preservation_and_revival

 

[Mark62]

There is plenty of spare capacity north of Newcastle. Relatively Very little goes beyond Newcastle with four trains an hour being the absolute maximum. It's a high speed route throughout with only severe slacks at Morpeth, Berwick and Dunbar. So there is plenty of scope for additional paths. I remember when the stopping trains ran from Berwick to Almouth or beyond, I travelled on them in the late 80s. They were always completely empty. Pathimg wasn't a problem and the line was faster then than today. i live in Northumberland and there is a complete antipathy towards public transport with the locals and the county council. There have been massive cutbacks with socially necessary bus services and I tried to get some public interest in challenging the cuts and nobody was interested. The car rules up here. A stopping service from newcastle to Edinburgh will attract little interest without an integrated transport policy. Buses must meet trains or people without cars will be stranded. An integrated transport system is a forlorn hope thanks to the act of deregulation.

 

[najaB]

There is plenty of spare capacity north of Newcastle. Relatively Very little goes beyond Newcastle with four trains an hour being the absolute maximum. It's a high speed route throughout with only severe slacks at Morpeth, Berwick and Dunbar. So there is plenty of scope for additional paths.

Not to be contradictory for the sake of it, but I seem to remember that someone 'in the know' (quite possibly ThePlanner) pointed out that due to the high-speed nature of the route it would be difficult to path additional stopper services.

This is because the express trains will catch up to the stopper very quickly, and the northern ECML isn't exactly blessed with passenger loops. So additional stopping services means fewer or slower expresses.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I wonder if it might be possible to do an hourly on this basis?

Train 1: All stops Newcastle to Widdrington, with the old colliery access spur turned into a reversal siding.

Train 2: Fast InterCity service comes past just after train 1 has gone in to reverse.

Train 3: Follows train 2 fast to Widdrington, then all stops to Edinburgh; is passed at Dunbar by...

Train 4: The next fast InterCity service.

Train 3 then follows that out of Dunbar, reaching Edinburgh just ahead of Train 2 from the next hourly cycle.

It obviously has the drawback that anyone going from a station between Newcastle and Widdrington would have to change at Widdrington in order to reach the stations between there and Edinburgh, but it does allow for train 3 to be a high performance EMU - train 1 could be as well if the reversal siding was electrified. That wouldn't need any more work than to do the same at the Morpeth turnback, which is what started all this off isn't it?

 

[edwin_m]

I wonder if it might be possible to do an hourly on this basis?

Train 1: All stops Newcastle to Widdrington, with the old colliery access spur turned into a reversal siding.

Train 2: Fast InterCity service comes past just after train 1 has gone in to reverse.

Train 3: Follows train 2 fast to Widdrington, then all stops to Edinburgh; is passed at Dunbar by...

Train 4: The next fast InterCity service.

Train 3 then follows that out of Dunbar, reaching Edinburgh just ahead of Train 2 from the next hourly cycle.

It obviously has the drawback that anyone going from a station between Newcastle and Widdrington would have to change at Widdrington in order to reach the stations between there and Edinburgh, but it does allow for train 3 to be a high performance EMU - train 1 could be as well if the reversal siding was electrified. That wouldn't need any more work than to do the same at the Morpeth turnback, which is what started all this off isn't it?

The other problem is that train 3 will be slow and overtaken so won't be used for through journeys, but the demand for a fast service from Newcastle to Widdrington is unlikely to be enough to justify that leg of the journey. You're probably better having an all-stations service over the whole route, that waits in a loop somewhere to be overtaken (thus combining train 1 with the northern half of train 3).

 

[najaB]

You're probably better having an all-stations service over the whole route, that waits in a loop somewhere to be overtaken (thus combining train 1 with the northern half of train 3).

The aforementioned lack of passenger loops being a potential show-stopper, until such time as some are provided.

 

[swt_passenger]

I thought the problem was that you need to allow for three or four fast trains per hour in future, including 2 x ECML operator, one by XC plus the odd extensions of Newcastle services, and an open access service running some hours. Then there's the new TPE Edinburgh extension.

All starts adding up.

 

[edwin_m]

The aforementioned lack of passenger loops being a potential show-stopper, until such time as some are provided.

Passenger loops between Newcastle and Edinburgh (excluding the immediate environs of either):

- Morpeth
- Chevington
- Alnmouth
- Belford
- Grantshouse
- Dunbar (the station, plan kicking around somewhere to double the platform)
- Drem
- Prestonpans (Up only)

Also goods loops at Berwick.

The problem with a semi-fast service isn't so much the lack of loops, it's the desire to run it through without it being overtaken so it has some chance of catching end-to-end passengers. Not to mention not having to spend 10min sitting in the middle of nowhere. This would be even more of a problem with a stopper - I believe Transport Scotland's plan for this service would only serve three or four stations in Northumberland.

 

[Kite159]

Passenger loops between Newcastle and Edinburgh (excluding the immediate environs of either):

- Morpeth
- Chevington
- Alnmouth
- Belford
- Grantshouse
- Dunbar (the station, plan kicking around somewhere to double the platform)
- Drem
- Prestonpans (Up only)

Also goods loops at Berwick.

The problem with a semi-fast service isn't so much the lack of loops, it's the desire to run it through without it being overtaken so it has some chance of catching end-to-end passengers. Not to mention not having to spend 10min sitting in the middle of nowhere. This would be even more of a problem with a stopper - I believe Transport Scotland's plan for this service would only serve three or four stations in Northumberland.

How to catch end to end passengers - dirt cheap advance/"TOC Only" fares, similar to London to Birmingham/Crewe with LM-only fares