Union Connectivity Review

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: Union Connectivity Review

Post by Micro The Maniac »

Chris Bertram wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 23:09 Boris Johnson is, day by day, being exposed as possibly the most incompetent UK PM ever.
The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy describes the Prime Minister Galactic President thus:
The Prime Minister President is very much a figurehead - he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the Prime Minister President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it.

On those criteria Boris Johnson Zaphod Beeblebrox is one of the most successful Prime Ministers Presidents the Country Galaxy has ever had.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19178
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Union Connectivity Review

Post by KeithW »

Chris5156 wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 00:11
KeithW wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 23:45 I dont recall any proposal for the HS2 extension to Leeds to carry freight ? Perhaps you could enlighten me ?
Like the rest of HS2, moving express services to the new line would release capacity on existing lines for more local passenger services and for freight.
Indeed it would - eventually and partially but only as far as Leeds and York. The problem of course that capacity crunch north of there.

The timeline for construction to start was 2035 so realistically we were talking about 20 years before that capacity could be delivered. In the meantime there are underused or in some cases unused lines that still have track in place that could be reused. The Leamside line is a good example, despite a report that the line was in good condition the Minister decided that the £600 million cost of reopening was prohibitive but then he was a major proponent of the HS2 extension which would have been much more expensive. If you want a road analogy the ECML is the A1 and the Leamside Line would be the A19. This was of course a very useful line but with ECML being electrified it was simply neglected.

The Durham Coast Line is another, while parts of it were updated to form part of the Tyne Wear Metro the rest is underutilised as the promised electrification and signalling improvements never happened. The Tees Valley Combined Authority proposed upgrade to provide a new electric service at 30 minute service between Hartlepool and Newcastle never happened. The Strategic Rail Authority trotted out the usual reason - the HS2 extension is the solution. What they could never explain was how this would fix the capacity crunch on the ECML north of York. I suppose we should be grateful that they eventually replaced the Pacers that used to serve the route.

The Stillington Branch of the Clarence Railway from is still largely intact. There are infrequent freight services to Seal Sands but it has the capacity to provide more. While much of output from the refineries is distributed by pipeline there is still a potential to get tankers off the road. With plans in place for the Teesside Freeport including the Logistics base and new development on brownfield land at Port Clarence the scope for reopening the still intact railway line is obvious Instead traffic trundles down the congested A1046 which is an S2 road with an AADF of 15k 1/3rd of which is made up of HGV's and LGV's

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.59026 ... !1e3?hl=en
User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15721
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Union Connectivity Review

Post by Chris Bertram »

A journey over the Stillington branch:

“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Phil
Member
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 18:03
Location: Burgess Hill,W Sussex, UK

Re: Union Connectivity Review

Post by Phil »

KeithW wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 23:45
JammyDodge wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 22:01 Well, we could have more rail freight capacity to do so if the government didn't decide to cancel the best part of HS2 and practically the entirety of NPR
If you want a real proposal then simply quadruple the ECML from York to Darlington, electrify the Durham Coast line and build a new rail tunnel under the Tyne from Jarrow to North Shields. The Tyneside Electrics were largely converted from electric systems to diesel in the early 1960's

Are you a visitor from 90 years ago!

If not then please explain why the York to Northallerton looks like this: https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/sig ... darlington and this https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/sig ... yrk#LINK_1

(York to Northallerton was widened to 4 tracks way back in the 1930s and has stayed that way ever since)

Making such a fundamental mistake does rather call into question any other suggestions you may offer up.

In fact the current pinch points are in fact merely Northallerton station (where it drops to two tracks through the platforms before the Teesside line splits off - though there is a freight by-pass) and Darlington where the station is off to one side leading to lots of conflicting moves.

Newcastle itself is not facing capacity issues and there is absolutely no need for a new heavy rail line under the Tyne.
Last edited by Phil on Fri Dec 03, 2021 17:56, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Vierwielen
Member
Posts: 5661
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 21:21
Location: Hampshire

Re: Union Connectivity Review

Post by Vierwielen »

exiled wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 09:41
Bomag wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:04 Devolved powers are what the UK Government have defined for each area. In this case what is devolved to the Scottish Government has the same principle as what is devolved to local councils in Yorkshire - which if you include the stolen areas has a bigger population than Scotland (5.5m vs 5.45m). The UK Government now has reserved powers over transport links with UK and wider factors. So all UK residents have a valid say on the A75 if it affects the ability to travel to NI.

From the public facing evidence the stance by neither Wales nor Scotland policy on private vehicles is driven by a coherent policies. In Scotland it looks to be a combination of default anti English/Boris sentiment (chose as appropriate), prioritising SNP areas and sucking up to the Green coalition partnership. In Wales it looks different in that internal welsh issues (North vs South) and PC cooperation means that the current pause could be environmental, or it could be to re-priorities internal traffic schemes. According to my mid-Wales relatives Monmouth/Gwent and Fflint/Denbigh are seen as far to English friendly. It may be apocryphal but the WAG express from North to South was diverted onto the less convenient route between Chester and Shrewsbury as too many people were using it to get to Crewe to travel into England and not to Cardiff.

As for accountability I doubt that there is anything the Welsh or Scottish bodies could do, in terms of transport policy, which would affect the electability of the current main parties. The drivers are elsewhere.
Unless there has been a new Scotland Act, roads are fully devolved in Scotland. The reserved powers are about vehicle and driver licensing, so completely not like Yorkshire at all. So the only way the A75 gets dualled without Holyrood or the Scottish Government saying so is if Johnson decides to push through a power grab in Westminster. The prioritising the A9 corridor and the NE started under the Lab-Lib Dem coalition years as there had been relative under investment in infrastructure. Not dualling the A75 or A1 is not 'Anti-English', it is that this has not been a priority for any Scottish Government since devolution and indeed was not a priority of the Scottish Office.
IF (and a big "if") England had its own assembly (or nine regional assemblies), with devolved powers regarding transport in the same way as does Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland, then Westminster funding upgrades in one region that would bring benefit to another region would not be so contraversial (which is what EU grants were all about). WHat we have is a mess in Westminster with, what is rapidly looking like three classes of MPs - those at the top who have two jobs (2nd job often comes with a "tied cottage" such as 10 Downing Street), English MP's who represent their constituencies in many matters and MPs from the "devolved nations" whose remit excludes health, transport and other devolved matters.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19178
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Union Connectivity Review

Post by KeithW »

Phil wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 17:52 Are you a visitor from 90 years ago!

If not then please explain why the York to Northallerton looks like this: https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/sig ... darlington and this https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/sig ... yrk#LINK_1

(York to Northallerton was widened to 4 tracks way back in the 1930s and has stayed that way ever since)

Making such a fundamental mistake does rather call into question any other suggestions you may offer up.

In fact the current pinch points are in fact merely Northallerton station (where it drops to two tracks through the platforms before the Teesside line splits off - though there is a freight by-pass) and Darlington where the station is off to one side leading to lots of conflicting moves.

Newcastle itself is not facing capacity issues and there is absolutely no need for a new heavy rail line under the Tyne.
Well given that I specified York to Darlington diagrams of Northallerton rather make my point , this is what the ECML approaching Darlington looks like and Darlington does indeed have capacity problems as I know from personal experience.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.46175 ... 6656?hl=en

You may wish to consider this document.
https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/fi ... t-2014.pdf

Northallerton to Darlington to Newcastle Page 67 onwards regarding increasing freight traffic.
Choices on potential service levels over this section are:
a. Increase journey times and reduce the speed differential of services over this section
Taking a Class 6 freight path as the slowest service on the route and then slowing down
other services to a similar speed to reduce the speed differential of services would result in
a requirement of approximately 20 minutes pathing time for passenger services. This
would have a large impact on overall journey time and deemed to be an unacceptable
outcome. This has therefore not been investigated any further at this point.
b. Reduce passenger service
A reduction in passenger service over this section would allow more capacity for freight
services. The passenger service would have to be reduced to a maximum of 6 services if
the optimal passenger interval was to be retained. Reducing to 6 would mean reducing
inter-regional, non-London LDHS or London LDHS services over this section and would
impact on achieving two standard freight paths with multiple looping points. This could
potentially be made up of the following options:
ECML Capacity Options Report Version 1.3 Final
and
The number of service required to terminate a Newcastle from the south will depend on the
chosen specification. The length of terminating services will dictate whether these can be
terminated in the bay platforms 9-12 which is desirable from a capacity and performance
view. It is likely that at least two of the services (Reading – Newcastle and Kings Cross –
Newcastle) will not be a suitable length for these platforms and will therefore have to
terminate in through platforms. It is recommended that this is assessed further in the next
stage of work as part of a platforming exercise at Newcastle.
see also
London LDHS. The ITSS shows three trains to/from Edinburgh (two fast, one
stopping) and a stopping train to Newcastle. It is proposed the Newcastle train
should only run as far as York (the slower Edinburgh and Newcastle trains have
similar stopping patterns York – Newcastle so there is no impact on connectivity). In
practice, this train could be extended to other destinations beyond York which do not
run beyond Northallerton (such as Harrogate, Scarborough or Middlesbrough)
depending on rolling stock.
Elsewhere they deal with freight capacity constraints.
Phil
Member
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 18:03
Location: Burgess Hill,W Sussex, UK

Re: Union Connectivity Review

Post by Phil »

KeithW wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 20:56

Well given that I specified York to Darlington diagrams of Northallerton rather make my point , this is what the ECML approaching Darlington looks like and Darlington does indeed have capacity problems as I know from personal experience.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.46175 ... 6656?hl=en
Still doesn't get over the fact that York to Northallerton is around twice the distance of Northallerton to Darlington nor the fact that from Northallerton there is the option of running via Teesside. That gives a completely false impression of the true facts on the ground.

You also failed to originally mention the two clearly identified pinch points of Northallerton or Darlington station - both of which are far more of a priority to resolve than the double track Northallerton to Darlington station. Once Northallerton and Darlington are resolved then it may be (note thats not a 'will') that further attention is needed on the aforementioned double track section

A lack of terminating capacity at Newcastle will not be assisted by a heavy rail tunnel that avoids the city centre as the decline of heavy industry has meant passenger traffic (which needs to serve the city centre) outnumbers freight movements. Additional bay platforms are in any case possible by reclaiming part of the car parks - land the railway gave up in past rationalisations.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19178
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Union Connectivity Review

Post by KeithW »

Phil wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 11:21

Still doesn't get over the fact that York to Northallerton is around twice the distance of Northallerton to Darlington nor the fact that from Northallerton there is the option of running via Teesside. That gives a completely false impression of the true facts on the ground.

You also failed to originally mention the two clearly identified pinch points of Northallerton or Darlington station - both of which are far more of a priority to resolve than the double track Northallerton to Darlington station. Once Northallerton and Darlington are resolved then it may be (note thats not a 'will') that further attention is needed on the aforementioned double track section

A lack of terminating capacity at Newcastle will not be assisted by a heavy rail tunnel that avoids the city centre as the decline of heavy industry has meant passenger traffic (which needs to serve the city centre) outnumbers freight movements. Additional bay platforms are in any case possible by reclaiming part of the car parks - land the railway gave up in past rationalisations.
I in fact specifically mentioned Darlington because it is a known pinch point due to the fact that the line to Middlesbrough and Saltburn line has to cross the ECML. There is now a project to build new platforms to the east of the station to remedy this, However even with that it was noted in the Network Rail report that increased freight usage of the existing ECML was only viable if passenger services were slowed or reduced. The problem of running 125 mph high speed trains, freight and slow commuter trains on such a configuration are is. The extra passing loops proposed will help but at the end of the day stations such as Morpeth have had to cut local trains to Newcastle because there is no passing loop and no realistic prospect of adding one.

If you live in one of the places north of Newcastle that have a station its extremely aggravating when you have to drive or spend an hour on the bus to Gosforth then catch the Metro to Newcastle when you can see the trains rushing through town.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.24150 ... 6656?hl=en

If you were to try at to get a train to York from Widdrington arriving at 5PM this is what you have to do.

2.22 PM catch bus to Gosforth
3.28 PM catch Metro to Newcastle Central Station
3.58 PM catch train to York
4.55 PM arrive in York

In reality what people do is drive down the A1/A1(M)/A59

This is the price of high speed trains, a twin track line and no passing loop.

We currently have rather a schizophrenic transport policy, on the one hand there is an aspiration to get HGV's off the roads but on the other hand we want fast passenger services. Without investment in extra rail capacity we cannot do both. This why when we have unused lines such as the Leamside Line or even worse decent quality lines such as the Stillington Branch which have only a handful of movements I believe we should make the best of them.

The line from Northallerton through Eaglescliffe and Stockton and the Durham Coast Line are underused and like the Leamside Line have not been electrified. This seems like a wasted opportunity to me. Before the ECML was electrified they saw much more traffic. I used regularly catch the HST 125 from Middlesbrough to Kings Cross via Northallerton but ECML electrification ended that. Finally with the Class 802's that service is being resumed.
User avatar
exiled
President
Posts: 24563
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 17:36
Location: South Lanarkshire

Re: Union Connectivity Review

Post by exiled »

Vierwielen wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 17:55 IF (and a big "if") England had its own assembly (or nine regional assemblies), with devolved powers regarding transport in the same way as does Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland, then Westminster funding upgrades in one region that would bring benefit to another region would not be so contraversial (which is what EU grants were all about). WHat we have is a mess in Westminster with, what is rapidly looking like three classes of MPs - those at the top who have two jobs (2nd job often comes with a "tied cottage" such as 10 Downing Street), English MP's who represent their constituencies in many matters and MPs from the "devolved nations" whose remit excludes health, transport and other devolved matters.
The current settlement has been lopsided, but the problem is a lot of especially Tory MPs think they can legislate for Scotland and Wales without consequence on devolved matters. For the roads we could have, especially with devolution to English regions, had a set up where the UK DoT had a major planning role, and/or a role operating/financing some strategic routes, more like Spain in Europe or the US. The set up is more like Belgium or Canada where the infrastructure is down to the regions or provinces only with little input except some finance from the centre.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
AndyB
SABRE Developer
Posts: 11036
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 21:58
Location: Belfast N Ireland
Contact:

Re: Union Connectivity Review

Post by AndyB »

It is worth pointing out that legally Westminster can legislate on devolved matters, and the devolved institutions can repeal that legislation, etc etc, which is why the Sewell convention was brought in.

The most notable exception was when Westminster decided to legislate to legalise abortion in Northern Ireland. Consent would have been blocked by the DUP had the Assembly been sitting, which of course it wasn’t, and as we know they did nothing to change that position until it was too late, but critically it was the case that firstly the DUP could not muster 46 votes to force through a bill to repeal that provision, and secondly that such a repeal bill would probably have been unlawful under the NI Acts as once such a right is granted, equality acts would probably have prevented its withdrawal.
User avatar
the cheesecake man
Member
Posts: 2457
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
Location: Sheffield

Re: Union Connectivity Review

Post by the cheesecake man »

Chris Bertram wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 23:09 He makes stuff up on the hoof constantly, putting his colleagues in tricky positions, and often has to backtrack, which is embarrassing even for those opposed to him.
While it isn't a good thing. most politicians are skilled at not answering questions or being economical with the truth. With Boris you just get bluster large parts of which have so little relevance to the question asked they can't even be described as lies or cunning evasiveness. He demonstrates this brilliantly in PMQs every week. But he'll stay as long as he keeps winning elections.
Post Reply