NR plans more platforms and tracks for North East railways
PHILIP HAIGH examines Network Rail’s plans for improving capacity and connectivity in the region
RADICAL changes to Northallerton station and enhancements at
York and Darlington form the centrepiece of Network Rail’s proposals to make the rail corridor between Church Fenton and Newcastle fit for the 2030s.
Northallerton’s two platforms would be shifted outwards from their current position, to be served by loop lines rather than the fast lines as they are today.
These loops would form extensions from the East Coast Main Line’s slow lines that run south of the station. The northbound loop would continue northwards before crossing over or under the ECML, and then join the line to Eaglescliffe. This allows trains towards Teesside to cross the ECML without blocking its southbound line.
Meanwhile, NR suggests that overall train performance would benefit from keeping today’s grade-separation between the southern slow lines and
Teesside for trains not calling at Northallerton.
The geography of Northallerton makes NR’s proposal very ambitious, with little space for loops and bridges. It admits that the proposal has a “very high order of magnitude cost” and recommends more analysis of costs and benefits, including the impact on the town from having more trains over its level crossings.
NR summarises three other options for Northallerton. They include building new platforms on the Eaglescliffe line. ECML trains would still stop on the fast lines and more trains would cross Boroughbridge Road, Romanby Road and Springwell Lane level crossings. NR suspects this option would not deliver Northern
Powerhouse Rail’s ambitions.
The second option extends the loops from the south and builds the two new platforms of NR’s preferred option but keeps the flat crossing north of the station, which constrains southbound services.
A third option would have NR building a new station on the fourtrack ECML south of the current station. This would serve ECML and Eaglescliffe trains but would put the station further from the town centre. This would likely be the cheaper rail option but would need new access roads.
It’s not just the ECML
Church Fenton marks the southern point for NR’s analysis, because it’s there that HS2’s second phase should join NR’s tracks. As a result, the analysis takes account of HS2 services but is not wholly reliant upon them. The same is true for Transport for the North’s Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) plans.
The report covers more than just the East Coast Main Line and considers rail services in North Yorkshire, Teesside and County Durham.
NR explains: “Holistic planning necessitates consideration not only of the seats on trains required to meet forecast growth, but also the potential need for upgrades to stations, power supply and the railway’s capability to carry freight.”
It adds: “There is now a one-off opportunity to maintain alignment of HS2 and NPR plans with an integrated network which puts passengers first, bringing forward benefits in advance of the 2030s where there is evidence to support doing so.”
NR classes some of its suggested improvements as “no regret”, claiming that they make sense
regardless of what happens with NPR and HS2. They include adding a third track between York and Skelton Junction (where trains for Harrogate diverge), improving Darlington station (for which the Department for Transport announced £8.7 million worth of development money on June 29 for new platforms), and lengthening Newcastle’s four westfacing bay platforms (9-12).
Taken as a whole, NR’s proposals constitute a major route modernisation, although NR is careful to use more discrete terms as part of what it describes as “continuous modular strategic planning” (CMSP). It says this is a mechanism to provide funders with “an impartial, evidence-based strategy for the long-term future of the railway”.
They come as train companies look to increase services on existing routes and add others, such as Ashington-Newcastle. One of the largest increases is FirstGroup’s open access proposal to run five daily trains between London and Edinburgh.
NR’s work also considers freight, with an hourly path each way for 70mph, 1,800-tonne trains on the ECML and an hourly 60mph, 2,400-tonne path each way via the Durham Coast Line and Yarm. Both use the ECML south of Northallerton.
Without HS2, London trains become overcrowded under NR’s analysis (which takes account of DfT demand growth of a third by 2038 and Transport for the North demand growth of 50% by the same time, compared with 2018). This crowding comes despite planned extra Edinburgh and Middlesbrough services.
NR estimates that by 2037 there would be a gap of four vehicles per hour (seven by 2050) for London. For TransPennine Express services, crowding gives a threevehicle gap by 2037. This ‘gap’ is NR’s estimate of how many extra carriages would be needed each hour to prevent overcrowding. It doesn’t differentiate between this gap being filled either by longer trains or extra trains.
With HS2, the London overcrowding is sated until 2050. However, HS2 cuts CrossCountry’s service north of York to one train per hour (the other existing train terminates at York). This crowds the remaining service and gives a gap of six cars by 2050. When NPR services start, TPE crowding disappears but CrossCountry’s remains.
Crowding spreads further under TfN’s higher demand modelling. NR suggests the XC gap north of York becomes six cars per hour by 2037 (which is the equivalent and more of the withdrawn XC service). At the same time, services east of Darlington need longer trains.
Change at York
NR proposes putting back some of what British Rail removed in 1989, when it remodelled and resignalled York as part of its ECML electrification project. It suggests Platform A and Platform 0 be south-facing bays on the eastern side of the station (they were Platforms 1 and 2 under previous numbering schemes).
NR says: “These platforms would be predominantly utilised by terminating services which use the Normanton lines to the south, reducing the need for trains to cross multiple lines to reach their
platform at York.
“An option for a bay platform capable of accommodating a 200metre train has been developed and further work is recommended to determine the marginal cost of the second platform.”
At the western side, NR proposes building another island for Platforms 12 and 13, to fit at least 200-metre trains but preferably
260 metres.
It explains: “This recommendation enables services using the Leeds lines south of
York to mostly utilise the western through platforms, including planned HS2 and NPR services.
“Many of the scenarios tested only found the need for one new through-platform, but progression of two is recommended because it is likely that there would be cost efficiencies to delivering both new platform-faces simultaneously, and the second new through platform would be required to deliver the full 13 trains per hour through
York station required to deliver
NPR and HS2 plans.”
Coupled with these extra platforms, NR proposes adding several crossovers to allow parallel arrivals and departures and to reach the planned third line to Skelton Junction. Further improvements might come from changing signalling to permit NR’s ambition of running passenger and freight trains more closely together.
“As a minimum requirement, changes would be required to train planning rules to allow trains to be planned three, rather than the current four, minutes apart between York and Colton Junction. Additionally, the time required for the crossing movement of the freights from Holgate Junction to Colton Junction and viceversa would need to be reduced, although this can be avoided by routing freights through York station rather than the avoiding lines. No requirement has been identified to grade-separate junctions around York.”
This ambition drives NR to conclude that it’s worth exploring digital signalling. NR already has plans to roll this out on the southern section of the ECML and notes: “Digital signalling provides an opportunity to deliver growth in services without additional strain on train reliability. While not specifically required for York (or elsewhere) if the recommendations here are delivered, as the industry continues to develop plans for
HS2 and NPR, it must do so with cognisance of the opportunities and costs of digital signalling.”
The changes around York will likely cost several hundreds of millions of pounds. NR has yet to price its plans other than placing them into low (up to £5m), medium (£5-£50m), high (above £50m) and very high (above £250m) categories. Most of York’s lie in the high category, with signalling in the very high.
At Darlington, NR’s plans for two extra through platforms and a south-facing bay match the ambitions of the Tees Valley Combined Authority for the station. NR suggests these additions will cope with HS2 and NPR services, allowing more efficient platforming and improved capacity by reducing crossing movements over Darlington South Junction.
A local council report last February explained the changes to rail services that would follow the extra platforms. It said that southbound trains would shift from Platform 1 to the new Platform 5, which removes their need to cross the northbound line. Trains heading north would move from Platform 4 to Platform 1, which should ease approach and departure speeds. This leaves Platform 4 for trains to and from Bishop Auckland. These would still cross the ECML at the south junction to reach the Tees Valley Line.
Trains from this line would use the new bay platform rather than Platforms 2 and 3 with no need to cross the ECML. Councillors heard that this could allow train times to be adjusted to better connect with other trains once the ECML crossing constraint was removed.
NR adds: “Detailed design should further consider provision of an additional crossover allowing access from the Saltburn direction into Platform 6 without using the existing ECML, which would provide greater operational resilience. Subject to detailed timetabling assessment during development, the benefits of the recommended option may require that the through Saltburn to/from Bishop Auckland service is split into two services at Darlington to accommodate nine or more passenger services through Darlington on the ECML.”
Along the Durham Coast
Horden station opened on June 29 (56 years after BR closed the original), served by the Durham Coast Line’s hourly stopping service. There’s ambition for a second hourly service on this route, which links Tyneside and Teesside via Sunderland and which shares its northern end with Tyne and Wear Metro services.
It’s a comparatively busy route that NR thinks could accommodate current ambitions for more services - but possibly not reliably, which counters the clear messages about punctuality that come from the National Rail Passenger Survey.
“This is particularly relevant because there are also local aspirations to open a station in the Gateshead area, and separately Network Rail has undertaken early discussions with partners to explore the feasibility of further improved connectivity for Durham Coast Line stations,” it says.
This improved connectivity might result in a new service between Darlington, using its
new platforms, and Hartlepool or Sunderland.
NR puts forward four options to make the Durham Coast Line more resilient, the first of which is a new through platform at Sunderland
(in the ‘high’ cost range). NR notes the station’s challenges, with
Grand Central trains from London turning back there and frequent Metro services. NR says it would be expensive, with engineering challenges despite the station once having four platforms.
A second option comprises a single south-facing 120-metre bay, which NR says should be cheaper but less flexible.
Cheaper still would be to install a turnback siding north of Sunderland between St Peters and Stadium of Light Metro stations. This option provides less operational flexibility than either of the platforms and may bring operational challenges related to turnaround times, notes NR.
Finally, NR suggests reinstating Hartlepool’s closed southbound through platform. On all four, NR cautions that they are the result of early development work and that it is not yet making specific recommendations for the Durham Coast Line.
There’s another line between Teesside and Tyneside, but its northern half fell from use in the early 1990s and has since had its track removed. This is the Leamside Line, which has periodically been proposed for reopening and is now again under the microscope.
If funders’ ambitions stretch to seven passenger services per hour on the ECML, then NR recommends sending freight via Yarm and Stockton to divert it from the ECML between Northallerton and Ferryhill (a double-track section).
From Ferryhill, it could run once more on the ECML before being diverted via Bensham Chord (just north of Tyne Yard and a section of line that BR closed when it resignalled Tyneside in the early 1990s).
Sending trains via Bensham
Chord allows them to pass under the ECML and use Newcastle’s bi-directional Up Slow line to cross King Edward Bridge over the River Tyne and avoid blocking any platforms at that station.
But for eight or more trains, NR recommends reopening the Leamside Line from Tursdale Junction (just north of Ferryhill) either in part or in full to Pelaw, where it joins the Durham Coast Line from Sunderland.
It explains: “Given the constraints of the Durham Coast Line as an alternative route to carry additional services, it is recommended that feasibility of options to reopen the former Leamside Line are progressed to Strategic Outline Business Case level maturity in order to deliver growth for the 2030s and beyond.
“This would provide an alternative route for freight services, a diversionary route for long-distance passenger services, and potential local connectivity benefits for passenger services.”
NR cautions that progressing options is not the same as committing to reopening the line.
The partial reopening option, explains NR, has trains rejoining the ECML just north of Durham. There was a line linking the two before 1964, which crossed Belmont Viaduct over the River Wear.
However, this link used the south-facing Newton Hall Junction on the ECML and the northfacing Auckland Junction on the Leamside Line. This is opposite to the way NR needs any future link to work. Nevertheless, the old line’s trackbed is largely untouched, although the viaduct is now listed Grade 2 for architectural merit.
Reopening only a portion of the Leamside route leaves its northern section free for any potential development of Metro services, such as the Wearside loop. This proposal would extend track and trains west from South Hylton towards Washington and then north to Pelaw.
Metro also has ambitions to run further south to link services to Durham at Belmont. It already runs over NR tracks between Pelaw and Sunderland. Future extensions could entail more sharing.
Full reopening might allow access to Tyne Dock from
Leamside, NR suggests. Again, there once was a direct line which was used by Tyne Dock-Consett iron ore trains for many years. However, BR closed it in 1966 and its trackbed is now bisected by industrial buildings associated with Nissan’s car plant in Sunderland.
In reopening Leamside, NR will need to solve the problem of level crossings at Whitwell, Fencehouses, Usworth and Follingsby. The one at Fencehouses is in the middle of a built-up area, which makes replacing it with a bridge more difficult.
Whichever option finds favour will not be cheap, with NR placing Leamside’s reopening into its ‘very high’ category with likely spending over £250m.
Newcastle’s Platforms 9-12 sit ideally for terminating trains but are not long enough to accommodate tomorrow’s likely services, says NR.
It explains: “To allow up to six terminating long-distance trains alongside other services, at least three of the platforms would be lengthened to accommodate trains of up to 200-metre length.”
However, it goes on to say that if only three are made longer, then some of HS2’s planned services would have to use the station’s through platforms and would need to turn-round in 20 minutes. This is an unacceptable performance risk, according to NR, so it would prefer all four bays were made longer.
To do this, NR will need to remove the Forth Banks branch. This is the final remains of the line to Carlisle via Scotswood, which closed in 1982 and 1986. It’s currently used for stabling and so its removal may need alternative facilities elsewhere.
NR ruled out a turnback at Manors because it uses too much capacity, as does running empty to Heaton Depot, while running round the High Level and King Edward Bridges makes operations more complex. NR’s report provides no clear answer to this problem but it’s clear in its view that all four bays should be lengthened.
The railway between Church Fenton and Newcastle needs not just track and platform capacity, it also needs more overhead electrical power for trains. NR estimates that to fully decarbonise passenger and freight services around York needs a 167% increase in power supplies by
2050. From York to Northallerton needs 116% more and from there to Newcastle another 120%.
Network Rail’s report into the lines between Church Fenton and Newcastle represents the early stages of planning how to improve capacity along them. It’s looking forward to the 2030s, with its analysis completed before COVID-19.
The ideas within it will now go forward into the Department for Transport’s five-stage enhancement machinery for decisions in turn to develop, design and deliver them. Each idea could fall at each decision point.