The Leamside line

[DarloRich]

But when you look at the suggested reopening costs in that report ( and I think you have to do up Ferryhill - Stillington - Eaglescliffe and perhaps even Eaglescliffe - Northallerton to get a decent quality of service) it becomes prohibitive.

I would love to see the line in use and it is stupid that it is not - but the figures need to add up - especially in these austere times!

 

[tbtc]

* A Tyne to Tees half-hourly commuter service would have a passenger patronage level of over 700,000 per annum

That sounds impressive.

And then you look at the maths...

Lets say 700,000 over 52 weeks is 13,461 per week.

13,461 per week over 7 days is 1,923 per day.

Assuming the service runs 07.00 - 19.00 (a twelve hour day - with no early morning trips and no late evening trips) you have 160 people using it each hour.

Since these are the figures for a half-hourly service, that's four trips an hour (two northbound and two southbound), so that's 40 passengers per train (in fact, as some of them would only be doing shorter journeys, it may have fewer people on it at any one time). Plus are there people counted in this who'd otherwise take the hourly 156 from Newcastle to the Boro?

Basically there are enough people to half-fill a class 153 (at the frequency suggested). Obviously these are broad figures (there will be more passengers during the week than at the weekend, there will be rush hour services that are quite busy). However, its an example of how a big "headline" figure looks a lot smaller when you boil it down like this...

Sorry to be cynical, but 700,000 isn't as "big" as it sounds for a service of that frequency.

 

[PinzaC55]

Just a gentle observation....the reopened Alloa branch was subject to a "Feasibility Study" before it opened and I think the quoted figure was 250,000 a year which was comfortably exceeded in the first six months?
I think similar figures applied to Ebbw Vale to Cardiff.
I once read an LNER document in Kew PRO which stated that the platforms at Fencehouses need to be lengthened because in the rush hours "the platforms were so full that people were in danger of falling onto the tracks". Although Thatcher managed to wipe out most of the industry in the area in the 1980's it's safe to say the station would be busy again.

 

[AutoKratz]

Yes, typically demand forcast in feasibility studies are lower than the actual result.

But even if this forcast was correct, if the trains were carrying just 40 passengers per train, the line would still be operating in profit from the farebox revenue alone. Operating cost using trains capable of 90mph would be £1,500,000 (including leasing, crews and crew costs).

This leaves a profit of £500,000 annually with each train carrying just 40 passengers!

 

[142094]

Wonder how much abstraction of passengers there would be from other services - e.g if the Middlesbrough - Washington - Newcastle route was quicker then the numbers on the Durham Coast Line would drop a lot - which could mean less services that way.

Would be interesting to see if there is a case for a Route Not Darlington MBR - NCL ticket at a lower price.

 

[tbtc]

Yes, typically demand forcast in feasibility studies are lower than the actual result.

But even if this forcast was correct, if the trains were carrying just 40 passengers per train, the line would still be operating in profit from the farebox revenue alone. Operating cost using trains capable of 90mph would be £1,500,000 (including leasing, crews and crew costs).

This leaves a profit of £500,000 annually with each train carrying just 40 passengers!

Trouble is, there are a lot of services running at capacity, with standing passengers even on off-peak trains... there's nothing spare to run the Leamside line so you'd need to compete for trains against some very crowded routes.

I'd like to see a Tyne-Tees service (especially with the Metro meaning less scope for additional services through Hartlepool/ Sunderland). However, in the current climate I'm sorry but I don't think we should be opening/ reopening lines until we have capacity sorted out on existing routes.

 

[PinzaC55]

"I don't think we should be opening/ reopening lines until we have capacity sorted out on existing routes."

I don't think there is any case for reopening the Leamside as an electrified line but there is a VERY good case for it as a diesel line.
There's no originating traffic between Newcastle and Ferryhill but all freight has to share the ECML with passenger services unless it goes at night. A large part of the reason for removing the Newcastle -Darlington-Saltburn services 7 years ago was that the 144's slowed the main line down.
A reopened Leamside would allow such trains and freight to be taken off the main line.It's not rocket science.

 

[sprinterguy]

Most of the stations opened in the UK in the last ten years have either matched or often exceeded their forecast passenger demand: Alloa station on its’ own saw 124% more passengers than the 120,000 per year forecast in the first year of operation, and the Ebbw Vale line in Wales as a whole has seen passenger numbers 65% above those forecast.

I’m surprised just how low the forecast for the Alloa line was compared to the projected passenger numbers for the Leamside line, even if the Leamside line is considerably longer. That suggests there is a reasonably robust case for reopening the Leamside line.

As a general rule of thumb, recently opened parkway stations, such as those proposed at Washington and Belmont, tend to have exceeded their expected patronage levels in most instances (There are some exceptions). And the Belmont Park and Ride system is already well established and familiar to many commuters and local people. Some quick sums from the figure stated above of 90,000 people per year using these facilities suggests a healthy 150 people per day at each site, and there’s no reason why these forecasts wouldn’t be met, based on past experiences in other areas. An average of 40 people per train seems a fairly acceptable figure when compared to the loadings I have witnessed on the Durham coast line, given that this figure would fluctuate up and down dependant on the time of day.

The Leamside line would be fantastic for taking freight off the ECML. The one fly in the ointment is the prominence of Tyne Yard as a staging point and crew change for the MGR traffic that makes up a large proportion of the freight traffic on the northern portion of the ECML, although admittedly it’s prominence has diminished since FL Heavy Haul and GBRf have won many coal flows in the area and don’t use Tyne Yard.

It would be interesting to see how a Middlesborough to Newcastle via the Leamside line passenger service would impact on the Durham Coast passenger loadings. It’s certainly true that a reopened Leamside line would be an attractive proposition for improving Tyne-Tees rail links, given that the Durham Coast gets gummed up by the Metro extension at the top end. It might even provide a more substantial reason for the Metro to be extended round to Washington from South Hylton to meet the Leamside line, and give the less than successful South Wearside line more of a purpose.

 

[DarloRich]

Personally i dont see how the case for Boro-Newcastle passenger services (via Leamside) can be justified, at least initially. The Stillington line would also need upgrading. The cost may be prohibitive.

Frieght use on the entire route (including Stillington), coupled with metro usage say as far as a parkway station at Belmont, or perhaps more likely Fencehouses can be justifed. Just need to find the cash and some more metro stock!

 

[PinzaC55]

SprinterGuy said "The Leamside line would be fantastic for taking freight off the ECML. The one fly in the ointment is the prominence of Tyne Yard as a staging point and crew change for the MGR traffic that makes up a large proportion of the freight traffic on the northern portion of the ECML, although admittedly it’s prominence has diminished since FL Heavy Haul and GBRf have won many coal flows in the area and don’t use Tyne Yard."

That's an easy one.The "staging point" for the Leamside was Park Lane yard which was gradually abandoned a few years and still has the rusty remains of the connections to the Sunderland.There's ample space for any sidings which were necessary.
Regarding the idea of extending the Metro to Belmont it needs to be remember that it is the TYNE & WEAR METRO and Belmont is in County Durham.Historically Councils tend not to co-operate with each other and the citizens of County Durham might not like having to subsidise their northern neighbours just as Mackems did not like subsidising the Metro in the 22 years before it was any benefit to Sunderland.

 

[DarloRich]

Pinza - i thought i put that in my post! - Is that the Tynesdie Central Frieght Depot? The point on the council cooperation is a good one which is why i think any such line would run only to Fencehouses.

Mind a station on the park and ride site at Belmont would be very well placed for the A1M - Now if they could also put in the link line form there to the ECML....................

 

[sprinterguy]

Personally i dont see how the case for Boro-Newcastle passenger services (via Leamside) can be justified, at least initially. The Stillington line would also need upgrading. The cost may be prohibitive.

Unless Newcastle-Middlesborough via Leamside trains picked up one of the Darlington-Saltburn paths and ran Newcastle-Leamside-Darlington-Middlesborough-Saltburn, which would negate the need to upgrade the Stillington line. It does mean that slower Northern services are on the ECML between Ferryhill and Darlington, but that isn’t a vast distance compared to the old arrangement with the Newcastle-Saltburn trains.

Have an hourly Newcastle-Darlington-Middlesborough-Saltburn local service, and divert either the hourly Newcastle-Manchester TPE or Newcastle terminating XC service via the Leamside line to give the principal stations on the route a half hourly service, and there would also be very little additional rolling stock required. The 3x3 car Turbostars mooted in the ECML RUS would about cover it I think.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's an easy one.The "staging point" for the Leamside was Park Lane yard which was gradually abandoned a few years and still has the rusty remains of the connections to the Sunderland.There's ample space for any sidings which were necessary.
Regarding the idea of extending the Metro to Belmont it needs to be remember that it is the TYNE & WEAR METRO and Belmont is in County Durham.Historically Councils tend not to co-operate with each other and the citizens of County Durham might not like having to subsidise their northern neighbours just as Mackems did not like subsidising the Metro in the 22 years before it was any benefit to Sunderland.

I’m sticking with the idea of a Metro interchange station at Washington, located around the site of the old Washington station: At that point the alignment was four track anyway for the divergence of the Tyne Dock line, so a Heworth-style rail interchange would be fine. Big, big problem with that idea would be the need for a new Metro viaduct adjacent to Victoria Viaduct. Huge source of expenditure right there. Fortunately, the Metro idea isn’t central to any Leamside reopening, it would just be a nice feature.

Regarding a staging point for freight traffic, would DB Schenker be willing to spread itself over two locations and support the upkeep of both? Unless Tyne Yard was closed down/mothballed.

 

[tbtc]

Regarding the idea of extending the Metro to Belmont it needs to be remember that it is the TYNE & WEAR METRO and Belmont is in County Durham.Historically Councils tend not to co-operate with each other and the citizens of County Durham might not like having to subsidise their northern neighbours just as Mackems did not like subsidising the Metro in the 22 years before it was any benefit to Sunderland

The Sheffield Supertram does run (briefly) into Derbyshire.

 

[PinzaC55]

The logical terminus for the extension of the Metro from Hylton would be Penshaw - it wouldn't involve a new bridge and there are acres of disused land. It could then interface with conventional trains, which would serve Washington.
The only real purpose of extending the Hylton Metro to Washington would be to link Sunderland and Washington which are already linked by frequent bus services so you have to ask what benefits would a hugely expensive new viaduct bring? Very little IMHO. In an ideal world I can imagine (say) a number of Crosscountry services and one or two ECML services diverted via Leamside and stopping at both Penshaw (to provide Metro connections to Sunderland) and at Washington. Sherburn Colliery is a relatively prosperous area and it might do well if it had stops also.
Thinking more, it's worth remembering that there used to be a direct line (the Hylton, Southwick & Monkwearmouth Railway) which ran from Southwick Junction on the site of the Nissan factory to Monkwearmouth. It was only ever a goods line and closed between Southwick Junction and Hylton Colliery in 1923.
I used to have an official NER plan which had "passengers stations" sketched in pencil but the point is that EVEN IN the great days of the railways the NER presumably didn't think a Washington - Sunderland service was viable?
"DarloRich" yes I was talking about the "Tyneside Central Freight Terminal" which was known as Park Lane in the 60's but was originally the site of Borough Gardens loco shed.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm going to feel foolish for asking this (seeing as I live in the area and should know!) but where and what is the Stillington line?

 

[PinzaC55]

It's a goods only line which runs from Ferryhill to the Norton Junction triangle north of Stockton.
It was originally going to be closed by BR at the same time as the Leamside but luckily they changed their minds.
It had stations at Sedgefield , Stillington and Carlton/Redmarshall but is commonly known as the Stillington Line.

 

[ainsworth74]

Thanks Pinza

 

[sprinterguy]

The logical terminus for the extension of the Metro from Hylton would be Penshaw - it wouldn't involve a new bridge and there are acres of disused land. It could then interface with conventional trains, which would serve Washington.
The only real purpose of extending the Hylton Metro to Washington would be to link Sunderland and Washington which are already linked by frequent bus services so you have to ask what benefits would a hugely expensive new viaduct bring? Very little IMHO. In an ideal world I can imagine (say) a number of Crosscountry services and one or two ECML services diverted via Leamside and stopping at both Penshaw (to provide Metro connections to Sunderland) and at Washington. Sherburn Colliery is a relatively prosperous area and it might do well if it had stops also.
Thinking more, it's worth remembering that there used to be a direct line (the Hylton, Southwick & Monkwearmouth Railway) which ran from Southwick Junction on the site of the Nissan factory to Monkwearmouth. It was only ever a goods line and closed between Southwick Junction and Hylton Colliery in 1923.
I used to have an official NER plan which had "passengers stations" sketched in pencil but the point is that EVEN IN the great days of the railways the NER presumably didn't think a Washington - Sunderland service was viable?

I was just thinking that Penshaw would be a much more cost-effective location for a Metro terminus and interchange, thanks to it negating the need for a massive new bridge, but I feel that there would be a bigger potential market to be tapped by serving Washington, even considering the frequent bus service. It’s worth bearing in mind that the Washington we know now is largely a product of the 1960s new towns and has grown considerably as a residential and commercial centre since the LNER closed the Hylton Castle-Washington section of line in the 1920s (A source I have says 1926, but that’s just peanuts really).

Although, if the Metro line was to shadow the Leamside line for a short way beyond Penshaw to terminate at Shiney Row (roughly using the former NCB alignment), there could be more of a passenger demand available: It takes a long time to get from anywhere near central Sunderland to Shiney Row on the current bus services.

 

[142094]

I agree hat the Leamside line should be reopened as diesel only first - I don't see any point in extending the Metro from Pelaw, and think it would be better to have the line extended from South Hylton instead to form an interchange with heavy rail. At least this means that extra Metro stock is not needed, especially when 3 are at Donny and new stock not looking likely for a good 10-15 years at least.

 

[PinzaC55]

"Although, if the Metro line was to shadow the Leamside line for a short way beyond Penshaw to terminate at Shiney Row (roughly using the former NCB alignment), there could be more of a passenger demand available: It takes a long time to get from anywhere near central Sunderland to Shiney Row on the current bus services."

If you mean the NCB line from Penshaw - Lambton Cokeworks - Fencehouses that would be difficult since most of it's alignment from Penshaw to Burnmoor Crossing has been swallowed up by a road and the remainder through the Cokeworks has been landscaped and is being redeveloped for housing.
However there were 4 tracks from Penshaw North to Wapping Bridge and from Lumley - Fencehouses - Rainton Junction and these are unobstructed, plus effective 4 track width through Leamside station. So it would be relatively easy to have 4 tracks Penshaw North to Belmont.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But when you look at the suggested reopening costs in that report ( and I think you have to do up Ferryhill - Stillington - Eaglescliffe and perhaps even Eaglescliffe - Northallerton to get a decent quality of service) it becomes prohibitive.

I would love to see the line in use and it is stupid that it is not - but the figures need to add up - especially in these austere times!

Just to put that in perspective you need to look at it from a cost/benefit aspect. Sunderland Council have wanted to build a new road bridge between Claxheugh and North Hylton at a cost of, I think, £278 MILLION pounds.Effectively all this would do is to duplicate the Queen Alexandra Bridge. It would also have the effect of visually destroying the beauty spot of Claxheugh Rock. And for what? Thatcher wiped all of the heavy industry from Pallion and indeed the rest of Sunderland so what would be the purpose of it?
For roughly the same amount you could have the Metro extended to Penshaw thus giving passengers from Sunderland a route to the south missing out Newcastle with "same level" interchange onto the Leamside trains and take loads of traffic off the roads.

 

[swt_passenger]

That ECML 2016 capacity review (draft) that made some recomnmendations about the Leamside line was reissued in December.

They seem less keen than before on any passenger diversions, such as XC or TPE, as the time increase would be seen as a passenger disbenefit; and it also seems to me they only really see Stillington/Leamside as a potential freight route, and only then if freight growth occurs.

Link here:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browseDirectory.aspx?dir=\RUS Documents\Route Utilisation Strategies\East Coast Main Line\East Coast Main Line 2016 Capacity Review&pageid=4449&root=\RUS Documents\Route Utilisation Strategies

 

[PinzaC55]

That ECML 2016 capacity review (draft) that made some recomnmendations about the Leamside line was reissued in December.

They seem less keen than before on any passenger diversions, such as XC or TPE, as the time increase would be seen as a passenger disbenefit; and it also seems to me they only really see Stillington/Leamside as a potential freight route, and only then if freight growth occurs.

Link here:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browseDirectory.aspx?dir=\RUS Documents\Route Utilisation Strategies\East Coast Main Line\East Coast Main Line 2016 Capacity Review&pageid=4449&root=\RUS Documents\Route Utilisation Strategies

As far as I remember in Deltic days it used to add 20 minutes to an ECML journey - not a big deal and if it was upgraded with new track and shorter block sections there would probably be nowt in it?

 

[DarloRich]

I cant see any diverted XC or TPE services - the operators wouldn't want it - there is no benefit for them, the only possible passengers services ( again a pipe dream i think) are Tyne Tees services from Northern.

Freight is the best (perhaps only) chance of getting the line open in its entirety. Someone needs to get Nissan on side asap!

 

[PinzaC55]

I cant see any diverted XC or TPE services - the operators wouldn't want it - there is no benefit for them, the only possible passengers services ( again a pipe dream i think) are Tyne Tees services from Northern.

Freight is the best (perhaps only) chance of getting the line open in its entirety. Someone needs to get Nissan on side asap!

You forget that the main reason for the discussion is that the ECML is saturated with traffic.In the event that one of the TOC's wish to run additional services they will have to get a path from Network Rail and pay dearly for it. If NR were able to offer them paths via Leamside at a small extra journey time (probably easily sorted by tightening Recovery time) but a lower price, would they take it? They'd lose the Durham stop but be able to stop at Washington which is currently unserved by rail and might be a big market.
I have to admit that when GCT started their Sunderland service I thought it couldn't possibly succeed due to a combination of low passenger demand and slow speeds on the Durham Coast Line. In the event I was absolutely wrong and they have proved the old idea that where you provide a good service, people will use that service and usage will in fact grow.That's why, as in the case of the Alloa and Ebbw Vale reopenings, "feasibilty studies" are little better than sticking your finger in the air to predict next weeks weather.

 

[swt_passenger]

You forget that the main reason for the discussion is that the ECML is saturated with traffic.In the event that one of the TOC's wish to run additional services they will have to get a path from Network Rail and pay dearly for it. If NR were able to offer them paths via Leamside at a small extra journey time (probably easily sorted by tightening Recovery time) but a lower price, would they take it? They'd lose the Durham stop but be able to stop at Washington which is currently unserved by rail and might be a big market.

I just linked to a report where IIRC NR suggest they'd put the freight up the Leamside route to make room for passenger paths on the mainline?

 

[PinzaC55]

I just linked to a report where IIRC NR suggest they'd put the freight up the Leamside route to make room for passenger paths on the mainline?

But the passenger paths will be filled eventually?

 

[paul1609]

Out of interest does anybody know how passenger figures on the T & W Metro extension to South Hylton compare to the original estimates?

 

[142094]

From memory they were lower than expected in the first year, and this meant the withdrawl of one tph from South Hylton to Newcastle. However they have improved since. Can't find any figures though, and not much info on the Nexus website. Might be able to try the Discussion forum on Nexus, usually gets a quick response.

 

[tbtc]

As far as I remember in Deltic days it used to add 20 minutes to an ECML journey - not a big deal and if it was upgraded with new track and shorter block sections there would probably be nowt in it?

*only* 20 minutes extra?

Newcastle to Darlington is around half an hour (some services do it under half an hour).

A 20 minute diversion is pretty considerable. Plus northbound you'd be taking paths off the southbound ECML (due to the need to cross over on the flat crossing).

Not convinced.

 

[142094]

But at the time of the Deltics it would have been 4 track to Durham (before electrification), and now it is 3 for most of the way, so not much scope for more trains running that way. Would be good to see a condition of a new TPE/XC franchise for running some services via Washington if it is ever reopened.