Leamside

[PinzaC55]

They've been "talking about it" for 21 years now. Talk is cheap and politicians prefer it to actually doing things.
Meanwhile they are building a new road bridge over the River Wear at a cost of £112, 000, 000. It goes from nowhere to nowhere and it is supposed to magically rejuvenate my home town which lost the will to live under Thatcher. Care to speculate how much it would have cost to reopen the 3 miles of track from Hylton to Penshaw and then repair the Leamside? Google "New Civil Engineer Wear Bridge" and see what real engineers think of it! "Flagrant waste of taxpayers money" was one of my favourite phrases.

[markindurham]

If anyone's interested, I'm told that the lifting teams are now past Shincliffe, heading towards Bowburn & Tursdale. Not much left now then; a couple of miles.

Didn't take long, did it?

Mark

[Coboman]

Suppose they had to get it quick for the blasted pikeys did!
In terms of reopening it well the old track would have to be lifted and the balast removed, cleaned and put back. The mistake thats been made on the Cauldon Low reopening is they have dumped new balast on top of the existing blocked balast. The sleeper timbers are still waterlogged when it rains and rotting away. A case of short term fix I'm afraid.

[Bryan]

That all depends on whereabouts you are talking about and what you are relaying.
I would imagine that any new line may possibly be relaid with steel sleepers.
So any old ballast treatment will be confined to a clear off of contaminated material such as vegetation and soil then the formation would be bladed off by a dozer, sleepers laid rerailed and top ballasted.
The actual ballast depth could be minimal of about 150 - 200mm
That is the way that many miles of existing railway have been relaid over the last 10 years.
Even if they relaid in concrete sleepers not a great deal would alter.
Only in areas of known drainage problems or with clearance issues would any consideration be made to digging out the ballast.

[markindurham]

As discussed before, there is more than just lifting, cleaning & replacing involved on the Leamside. there's a lot of work required to restabilise embankments. When I can, I'll see about putting up some photos I've taken in the last couple of years.

All expensive items - sadly until we see an upturn in the economy, it's unlikely to happen. I've heard mention of 2019 being the earliest that anything might start, but that's a while away.

Mark

[PinzaC55]

Meanwhile HS2 goes ahead at 37 billion and we just had 2 weeks of sport at a cost of 12-14 billion.

[markindurham]

Some shots taken in the last 12 months, before the (official) lifting started...

Broomside Junction, looking south




Coming north from the Bowburn crossing - note the lack of track - the up line has been 'pikeyed'


No finesse either - smash the chairs to release the rail


About half way to Shincliffe the up line was still in place...

Then we approach the bridge just south of Shincliffe



Approaching the A1(M) bridge it gets 'interesting'





Looking back towards Shincliffe


Then Whitwell crossing - see the anti-pikey measures to stop 'em driving onto the trackbed easily
South end

North end


All very sad to see

Mark

[61962]

Hi Mark,

The subsidence near the A1M is probably the site of the buried viaduct. It was a problem for years as the old timber structure had been infilled and not properly consolidated. An attempt to sort it was made in the early 80s when the top timbers of the viaduct were removed and the embankment consolidated with vibro stone piles. From the look of it these didn't go deep enough and the settlement has continued although perhaps at a slower rate than previously. Had the line continued in use I'm sure routine packing and tamping would have kept it right.

Its sad to see the line in this state. The real tragedy is that instead of it being used to get the Metro to Sunderland via Washington where a whole new population could have been given access to the system, they wasted all that money on putting the Metro on the existing railway that was already served by heavy rail, but just needing a bit of a revamp with some stations reinstated.

Had they used the Leamside it would have been easier then to extend to Durham and give a decent service for the many people who clog up the A1M every day in their cars going to Newcastle.

Eddie

[PinzaC55]

If they had reopened the Leamside and used it for the Metro that would mean that it could never have 25kv electrification in the same way that Sunderland will never have 25kv or until the current Metro OHLE is life expired. Since the Metro is funded by Tyne & Wear then by definition they wouldn't want it to go to Durham or at least they wouldn't pay for it.

[markindurham]

Hi Mark,

The subsidence near the A1M is probably the site of the buried viaduct. It was a problem for years as the old timber structure had been infilled and not properly consolidated. An attempt to sort it was made in the early 80s when the top timbers of the viaduct were removed and the embankment consolidated with vibro stone piles. From the look of it these didn't go deep enough and the settlement has continued although perhaps at a slower rate than previously. Had the line continued in use I'm sure routine packing and tamping would have kept it right.

Its sad to see the line in this state. The real tragedy is that instead of it being used to get the Metro to Sunderland via Washington where a whole new population could have been given access to the system, they wasted all that money on putting the Metro on the existing railway that was already served by heavy rail, but just needing a bit of a revamp with some stations reinstated.

Had they used the Leamside it would have been easier then to extend to Durham and give a decent service for the many people who clog up the A1M every day in their cars going to Newcastle.

Eddie

Hi Eddie

It could well be; this was a problem in many areas, I believe, where old timber viaduct were simply infilled. Knitsey, on the Lanchester branch, was another, I understand. However, burrowing animals haven't helped either - there was damage at Broomside Junction, away from the photos I posted before, which looked to be due to collapsed burrows, & i'm sure there was more elsewhere. There's also mining subsidence. I think that one of the saddest things is how quickly nature reclaimed the route. The track from Tursdale to Whitwell was actually reballasted, possibly as part of training exercises? in the early 2000s; this accounts for the very clean ballast. Even then, nature has moved back quite quickly.

As Pinza rightly comments though - would extending Metro have been the right thing to do? As he says, once Metro is in, you prevent 25kV installation for 20-30 years. It might have been better to have a single 25kV line along the Leamside with passing loops; this would have catered for commuter traffic and also diversions, & could have been installed on the Pelaw-Gateshead section too, as the Metro is only on the old Slow lines. However, life's full of 'what if' scenarios - we can, of course, blame Railtrack for much of the failure to encourage growth. If they'd done the maintenance they should have done, then probably Hadfield wouldn't have happened, and we wouldn't have seen the widespread curtailment of planned refurbishments/reopenings, such as Leamside, that were being considered.

I still believe that there is a business case for reopening, but until we either see a dramatic improvement in the nation's finances, or a huge increase in fuel costs which will curtail much private motoring, we're in for a long wait.

Mark

[PinzaC55]

Since we are in a hypothetical scenario here its worth noting that there were 4 tracks from Penshaw North Junction to Wapping Bridge and from near Lambton Cokeworks to Rainton Junction so it would be possible to extend the Metro from Hylton to Leamside with the Metro having its own seperate tracks and a "dive under" at Leamside to the Durham branch. Historically the major traffic on the line was Sunderland to Durham so this would work perfectly. Now all I have to do is get a job as a transport planner lolz.

[markindurham]

Since we are in a hypothetical scenario here its worth noting that there were 4 tracks from Penshaw North Junction to Wapping Bridge and from near Lambton Cokeworks to Rainton Junction so it would be possible to extend the Metro from Hylton to Leamside with the Metro having its own seperate tracks and a "dive under" at Leamside to the Durham branch. Historically the major traffic on the line was Sunderland to Durham so this would work perfectly. Now all I have to do is get a job as a transport planner lolz.

I don't think it's lolz at all - it's actually a sensible proposition, & thus doomed to failure...

The idea of Metro operation from a re-established bay platform at Durham Station, running to Sunderland, could well be a good one. Most of the trackbed is still extant between the main line north of Durham & its connection with the Leamside. There's space for a Park & Ride near Leamside as well, with esy access to the A1(M)/A690; this could cater for commuters going to both Sunderland and Durham

Mark

[2392]

One way the "powers that be" could/should have gone is to have operated at a minimum of once every three months or more pointedly once a month on an "iregular" bases an inspection/BTP Q/ route learning/refresher train making a return trip over the line. I say iregular so the itinerant scrapmen etc wouldn't exactly when or if it were due. So it's January Tuesday the 22nd, February Monday the 11th, March Thursday 21st etc Ok I'm using the 2013 calender but you get the idea. Of course these days with it being a privatised outfit it could/should have been written into the various TOC contracts that they'd provide a train as required at the request of Network Rail so that all parties could keep their hand in with the route knowledge over the line. It would of course helped Network Rail identify any repairs etc needed, the BTP would be able to keep an eye on the pikeys etc and of course the TOC's have up to date route knowledge.

[52D]

This thread needs to be seen by the Transport minister or whatever he/she is called these days. The suggestions are valid and would contribute to an integrated transport policy plus create jobs in a blackspot.
Of course we live in the real world and that will never happen.
Rant over.

[PinzaC55]

I just need to quibble with your use of "Transport Minister" and "integrated transport policy" in the same sentence. It has the ring of something Sir Humphrey from Yes Minister would say.
"Integrated transport policy" in this country consists of a limousine picking "Dave" Cameron up at the station.