The AB&T and regional transport policy

Paul Salveson raised the issue in one of his salvoes of the role of passenger transport authorities in the future of regional rail.
In essence the rumours that the owners of metro’s operating company, Deutsche Bahn, are keen on metro expansion reflect that debate.
Metro is one of the few vertically integrated rail operations in the UK. As a result it is capable of economies of scale and integratron that are denied to other rail franchises by the lunatic system imposed by the government in the 80s and 90s.
Expanding the range and scope of Metro would enable further gains to be made. Free from the interference of civil servants the franchise could invest in rolling stock and services that would focus on local needs, not the specifications of a rail network obsessed with inter city working and journey times to and from London. It is ridiculous that, once Metro refresh is complete, passengers on publicly subsidized rail in Tyne and Wear will have brand new trains, while local rail passengers in Northumberland will still be travelling on other franchise’s castoff from the 1980s.
It’s time to have that debate about what passenger transport planning should look like, and a genuine debate about what the rail network in Northumberland and County Durham could look like if there was one, integrated passenger transport authority across what the last government called the city region.
That doesn’t mean we need to have a debate about re-nationalization or any of the other shibboleths of left or right, just a genuine debate about subsidiarity and sustainability. Currently decisions about rail services in the regions are made too far away from the regions, and for reasons that have less to do with the needs of the regions than with attempts to reduce the risk of losses to the rolling stock companies and the big franchises.
That shouldn’t be a difficult debate to have. It could deliver savings and efficiencies for local government as well. Northumberland County Council can’t justify a transport policy officer who specializes in rail. Instead it forks out inordinate sums to consultants for reports that reflect the existing rail industry, not how it could be. It’s no surprise NCC has achieved nothing with regard to the AB&T, and looks as if it never will. Moving Durham and Northumberland into an enlarged Tyne & Wear PTA could benefit many more projects than just the AB&T.

A place for NCC to start again

"One of the more helpful suggestions in the McNulty Report was to devolve responsibility for local and regional rail services to passenger transport executives (PTEs) and local authorities. Not an original idea by any means and the Department for Transport had already been thinking along those lines anyway, but good it was endorsed in an otherwise lacklustre report. The principle is fine and already works well on Merseyside, where the PTE is the franchising authority for the 25-year long Merseyrail franchise. Creating smaller franchise units could bring a stronger focus on the customer with scope to encourage bids from co-ops and mutual, maybe even with employee involvement. "
Read much more in Paul Salveson's latest salvo; http://www.paulsalveson.org.uk/2011/07/03/illustrated-weekly-salvo-no-7/

How green is Northumberland council?

Take a look at the recent announcements about Northumberland county council's capital spending plans. Central to them is th Morpeth northern Bypass. NCC proposes to spend £13million, with government stumping up £22M, to divert one car journey in five away from the centre of Morpeth.

You did read that right. Four car journeys in five that currently go through Morpeth will continue to do so after the bypass is built. So that's £35M to make traffic in Morpeth not much better. NCC aren't very liberal with their traffic data. You'll search in vain for evidence that anything will improve in Morpeth as a result of this road being built. Cynics suggest its main purpose is to make Pegswood and the north and west of Ashington attractive places for housebuilders - provide dof course that there's a demand for houses with an easy link road to Berwick and Alnwick.

So for double the cost of putting rail services abck ont he Ashington Blyth and Tyne line a section of greenfield land will be dug up and tarmacked over, in the hope that housebuilders will move in. Raise that point with the administration at County Hall and they'll smile and murmur about industrial development in Ashington if only road access was better. Drive up the Spine road from Blyth to Ashington and you'll see Ashington's Field of Dreams business park on your left hand side, conclusive proof that you can build it but they still won't come.

So to sum up, NCC plan to plough up green space all round Morpeth in the vain hope that it might improve the economy of Ashington, for twice the price of a rail service to Ashington which could be linked into the Metro system and provide integrated transport for all south east Northumberland. Given the support for the Green Party in Morpeth, and their preference for integrated transport over the private car, this could be a political own goal for the administration at County hall.

Incidentally, if the objective is to take traffic out of the centre of Morpeth, why not upgrade the A1 junction at Clifton so that southbound traffic can come off the A1 there and go to County Hall or Merley Gate without passing through Morpeth town centre? Is that too obvious?

What Northumberland hoped for in 2003 (or why it's always only been one train an hour)

The Council has supported a strategy for some years to enhance the number of long-distance intercity trains calling at Morpeth and Alnmouth, thus widening the range of destinations available. It has also been a specific aspiration to improve travel opportunities between the east coast stations at Morpeth, Alnmouth and Berwick, which are currently not effectively linked to one another. This strategy has received endorsement in the A1 Multi-Modal Study completed on behalf of the Government Office for the North East. The Council is therefore presented with an opportunity through the Route Utilisation Strategy to argue the case again for additional stops at these stations by the long distance train operators.

7.3 If the provision of additional inter-city calls at Morpeth, Alnmouth, and additionally Cramlington, could be secured then there would be a reduced requirement for local trains on the route currently operated by Arriva Trains Northern. If sufficient intercity trains could be timetabled to provide an hourly service at these principal stations, the local train service might be reduced to just the one train in each peak period which also serves the intermediate village stations at Chathill, Acklington, Widdrington Station and Pegswood. This in turn could release capacity for ABT line trains between Benton Junction and Newcastle without expenditure on additional capacity or delay to the project.

7.4 To develop this strategy for the widest possible benefit of residents in the county and for the commercial benefit of the train operators would require the Council also to adopt complementary policies:

• to upgrade Cramlington station to Inter-city standard;
• to improve park and ride facilities at Alnmouth station (already in the LTP programme) and at Morpeth;
• to provide integrated bus links to Alnmouth station from Alnwick and the surrounding area.

7.5 In principle this strategy has already received support from the Government Office for the North-East and the Council has been encouraged to develop LTP bids for this strategy if the SRA adopts the train operating policy proposed in this report.

From a report published ion February 2003

Business cases

There isn't much to say on business cases.
There never has been a successful business case for the AB&T.
Last time the govenment made a decision, it did so on the basis of costs that were artificially inflated and which included a massive sum for the Bates line, which has since been lifted.

We think there are three business cases that need to be assessed.

One is the SENRUG business case for small scale re-opening of the AB&T.

One is our case, for re-opening as part of the Metro network with high passenger volumes.

The third is the least likely case, of re-opening as an open access facility owned by a community partnership, acting as a route for alternative medium length journeys over theoretical routes that require significant engineering work - Ashington to Carlisle and Stranraer for instance, or Edinburgh to Blyth or Tynemouth.

There is a fourth case, - of a combined heritage and community railway - which also could be assessed.

If Northumberland County Council would allow an open debate, we think the Metro option would win out in terms of costs and benefits. Some people in thise debate don;t seem to want to engage with the option and examine them in public. The council could make this possible.

Train technology

Yes, I know, technology is not particularly interesting.
Neither are men who do the whole Jeremy Clarkson bit and get obsessed with it for its own sake.
To understand the options for the AB&T though a little bit of information about the technology options and the history of the technology will help.

The East Coast Mainline is electrified via overhead wires carrying 25kV AC.

The Metro system is electrified voa overhead wires carrying 1.5kV DC.

The AB&T is not electrified in any way.

All three networks have different signalling systems, but most Network rail trained drivers are competent to travel across the ECML and the AB&T.

If you ask some people they'll tell you these technological and systems differences are insuperable.

They're not.

The biggest obstacles to wider and more useful passenger services in the north east are political and historical, not technological.

Train companies in the UK have routinely run dual voltage trains. Here's one and here's another.

The Metro was electrified before the East Coast Main Line. The divestment of the Metro network by British Rail, as was, was a classically short sighted decision. So was the decision not to electrify the AB&T as a relief route for the ECML, and to lift some of the line at the south of the AB&T. None of those decisions were fatal to the return of passenger services to the BA&T though. It has always been possible to commission rolling stock that could link the Metro network to the ECML; the obstacle to, say, Durham to Tynemouth or Berwick to Newcastle Airport services is not technology.

How does that observation help people in Blyth or Seaton Valley? Simple. Other nations, and even other parts of the UK, are experimenting with dual power diesel electric rolling stock. It works quite simply. In addition to the electric power system on the train, a generator pack is fitted to provide electricity to the motors when overhead lines aren't available.

With rolling stock like that, suddenly the divide between British Rail and Metro is simply an artificial divide, a set of contracts and rules that can be changed if anyone wants to badly enough. The key to that is desire. not technology.

Ambition

Imagine you have a railway line.
It's an unused railway line, and you have a chance to run one train service per hour.
What sort of service would you run?
Would you run a restricted service to the nearest major city, using old, end of life train stock, charging higher fares than competitor buses? Is that going to result in a successful business case?
Or would you look to produce a business case for a better service?
If you want to out-compete local buses you need to offer integrated ticketing and comparable connectivity, with none of the hassles caused by congested roads.
If you want to offer a service distinct to local buses you have to connect places they can't connect.
So do you run your one train an hour from Ashington to Newcastle, and go head to head with the buses, or do you run it from Ashington to Hexham , or Carlisle, or Durham?

As campaigners we decided that the key selling points for any rail service from Blyth and the Saton valley would major on integrated ticketing, connectivity and convenience. That means linking up with Metro. What we can't understand is why SENRUG would settle for a rickety, low capacity service to Newcastle only, requiring passengers to either work within walking distance of Central Station or Manors, or to buy two tickets, or to change trains. That's a serious lack of ambition.

Train paths and stuff

What's a train path? A train path is the infrastructure capacity needed to run a train between two places over a given time-period.

The capacity of the lower end of the AB&T, in terms of its current configuration, is one passenger train per hour each way at the lower end around Blyth and the Seaton Valley.

One train per hour. That's one two carriage train, with 138 seats, and maybe some space for one or two bikes. 138 people per hour from Ashington to Newcastle via Blyth. That's against Arriva's 7 - 10 buses an hour out of Blyth, with a committed capacity of about 400 people per hour, and another 5-7 buses an hour out of Ashington with a capcity of another 300 people.

Supporters of SENRUG's solution aren't actually in the mass people carrying business. They can't be, because their bid is to carry only a fraction of the demand. That's fine if all you want to is to give a fraction of the potential passengers a link into mainline rail at Central Station, but not if you're in the business of getting people to work across Tyneside in a way that reduces congestion, reduces the air pollution caused by Blyth's antiquated bus fleet and which offers car drivers commuting to work on the edge of Newcastle a genuine alternative.

Any rail solution serving Blyth, Ashington, and the Seaton Valley needs to be built round frequent services with mixed use and passing loops at intermediate stations like Seaton Delaval and Seghill to raise capacity. Only Metro appears to have the capacity to bypass Benton Junction and provide that solution.

Let us know if you think differently.

Benton Junction

View Larger Map

If the HTML works, you should see a Google Maps picture of Benton Junction.

It used to be a major rail junction, back in the days when connectedness and local services were a British Rail priority.

Nowadays, when journey times for Inter City trains are the number one priority, it's a bottle neck.

The first problem is simply that you have a much wider range of train speeds today than previously. It's as if the A1 had trucks tractors and private cars, with the private cars allowed to do up to 120mph. Oh, and a braking distance measured in miles, not metres.

Let's take a walk through the map. Benton Junction is where the Metro line to the coast crosses the East Coast Main Line. Until Metro was created the line to the coast was part of the British Rail network.

See the green arrow? Below and to the right of that you can see the curves of the Ashington Blyth and Tyne line. If you explore this further useing the images in Google maps you can see a freight train on the AB&T. The AB&T actually passes under the Metro line before running alongside it to Northumberland Park. Yo can see that in the top right of the image.

Below and to the left of the green arrow is what used to be a chord from the ECML up to what is now the Metro line. It's just a shadowy line of trees now.

Above and to the left of the green arrow is what used to be a chord from the Metro line to the ECML. That's used as Metro sidings now.

I've no knowledge of whether the curve to the top right of the green arrow ever existed, but it doesn't now. As a run round from the ECML to the AB&T it would serve no useful purpose I imagine, and BR had a terrible habit of vandalizing or lifting anything they couldn't think of a use for, which is why the AB&T is single track at its lower end.

Anyway, Benton Junction.

Let's go back to the AB&T, bottom right of the junction. If a train's running north from Newcastle to go up the AB&T it has to turn across the ECML. So not only is it runnign slowly up the northbound ECML, but traffic has to stop on the ECML to let it turn right up the AB&T. So either trains back up behind it while it waits for a slot to turn right, or southbound trains have to be held up.

That's why there's so little capacity for a Blyth to Newcastle service via the AB&T, because to do it at peak times means delaying intercity trains, and that's a sin in the modern railway world that seeks to compete with airlines. Even one train an hour from the AB&T onto the ECML might be too much. In case you think this is an exaggeration have a look at this story from the Morpeth Herald - a popular well used service from Cramlington to Manors and Newcastle was retimetabled to the point of being useless for commuters to make way for long distance services. SENRUG, overjoyed at a new service for Morpeth in the same package, didn't notice the needs of Cramlington commuters until the problem was pointed out to them.

There isn't an easy or practical solution to the Benton junction problem. A graded junction (using the railway equivalent of a flyover) might be an option, but I can't imagine a business solution that would make this possible without the kind of investment you only get for mainline rail in London. It might make sense to build a Morpeth avoiding mainline to eliminate the Morpeth curve and grow ECML capacity, but that would almost certainly be at the expense of capacity for local trains on the AB&T.

Essentially, all the heavty rail solutions to the problems connecting Blyth and the Seaton Valley to the jobs market of Tyneside have been considered, and what stands out is the need for a solution that integrates with Metro and which sets passengers free form congestion plagued buses. Add to that the lack of capacity at Benton Junction, and you come to the conclusion that Metro for Blyth and South East Northumberland is the only answer.

SENRUG's plans for Blyth and the Seaton Valley

The map is an old SENRUG map of their plan for the Ashington Blyth & Tyne line.
It looks like a Metro map, but it's deceptive.
Under SENRUG's plans the only stations on the map that would see more two trains an hour in each direction are Newcastle Central, Manors (possibly) and Morpeth. Many stations, including those on the Blyth line, would see only one train an hour.

Let's walk through SENRUG's plans. Phase 1 is to take the existing local  trains that run to Morpeth, which park up on the AB&T at Morpeth between journeys, along the AB&T to Bedlington. Choppington station may or may not get built, depending on who you ask. The beauty of this plan is that it can be done with existing trains, and the only real additional costs are the fuel used, and the cost of providing and maintaining new stations. No sane person can object to this proposal, but it still hasn't happened for reasons that no-one can quite explain but which are probably a lot to do with the convoluted nature of railway finances and the lack of any real commitment of Northumberland County Council to the project. NCC staff are judged on what they do, and you can get a lot of bus shelters built and cycle paths laid (and grumpy councillors placated) while you wait for a train comapny to work out if it can screw more subsidy out of government for any given change in services.

Phase 2 would require more rolling stock, since it would require trains to reverse north from Bedlington to Ashington. That would make the existing local rail timetable to Morpeth impossible without extra trains and drivers. It's not impossible once services are running to Bedlington of course, but it would require additional subsidies and a rigorous business case.

Phase 2A would require a new station to be built adjacent to the museum at Woodhorn. Trains could then run from Ashington to Woodhorn. Quite what demand would exist for that service is anyone's guess, but it does hold out the prospect of Woodhorn becoming a tourist attraction in the future. There might even be the prospect of heritage excursion trains going to Woodhorn on weekends, although that's not something you can build a business case for.

You'll notice Blyth and the Seaton Valley  is phase three on SENRUG's plans. You can see the logic of phase one, but not of phase two or three. Central to SENRUG's thinking appears to be that any train service has to link to Central Station. That raise the thorny topic of how you get trains through Benton Junction, which deserves another post all its own. There are two questions though that SENRUG have never satisfactorily answered.
1. If more trains will be needed to serve Ashington in Phase 2, why not make Phase 2 a Northumberland Park to Ashington shuttle service?
2. If passengers are to change between Phase 3 trains and  Metro at Northumberland Park or Palmersville, who will organise the integrated tickets and subsidies necessary to make the train an attractive option? The lack of answers to those questions is what inspired people to start arguing that Metro is the solution to getting Blyth and the Seaton Valley moving.

Metro back in the 70s

This map, originally produced by TWPTE, shows Metro as it was envisaged back in the 70s, with the line west of Regent Centre, used as a mixed freight and Metro line, and with the avoiding lines round the Metro depot at South Gosforth shown as two lines, not one.

Also of interest is that the map shows the original chords between the Metro network and the ECML at Benton.

Can you mix Metro and freight on the same line?

It was certainly possible back when Metro was built. Here's a great picture of a freight train running through Fawdon Metro level crossing in 1983.

 More details can be found here.

Why Metro now?

South East Northumberland Rail Users Group (SENRUG) and various local authorities have been campaigning for ten years or more for the AB&T to be re-opened.  The initial plan has been abandoned, and replaced by SENRUG’s three phase plan (which actually has four phases) which puts services for Blyth and Seaton Valley at the bottom of the list. Neither SENRUG nor any of the local authorities have delivered any of the phases of this plan, nor even a programme for delivering in a timely fashion any of the phases of the plan.

Instead people are asked to wait, and to wait again. Northumberland County Council’s involvement appears to be more of a job creation scheme for railway consultants than a realistic plan of campaign. NCC may have made the re-opening of the AB&T a priority, but it’s a priority with no funding and no timescale. It’s a wish, and as we all know, if wishes were horses beggars would ride to work.

It’s not as if there haven’t been siren voices warning about the delays and lack of activity. A report written for Blyth Valley Borough Council in 2005 criticized Northumberland County Council’s approach, of insisting on heavy rail as the solution for the AB&T, as ‘putting all its eggs in one basket’. Six years on, with no prospect of passenger services returning  to Blyth or the Seaton Valley, you can get the point.

The adoption by Metro of hybrid power system rolling stock, as envisaged by Blyth Valley Borough Council back in 2005, is a forward looking proposal that would enable more local rail services to be developed across Northumberland and Durham with ticketing integrated across the network in a way that Northern Rail currently fails to do. In terms of the future of the railway network, it’s an option that can enable the network to grow, and leave open the use of the network for freight and passenger diversions as well as passenger transport.

Press release 28 May 2011

Campaigners for Metro services to be extended to Blyth have expressed their disappointment at comments from a rail users group about their proposals.

In the News Post Leader last week Dennis Fancett of SENRUG stated that the potential journey time from Ashington to Central Station would kill off the business case for any metro extension.

Campaigners told the NPL that they felt SENRUG had missed the point.

'The beauty of Metro as a system is that it's not about Central Station, but all the stations in between, If you live in Blyth and work at the Ministry then a train to Central Station is no use, and it's not economic to buy a rail season ticket to Palmersville and a Metro season ticket.'

As yet, campaigners acknowledge, they haven't formed a group like SENRUG. Asked why, a campaigner said
'SENRUG has been campaigning to re-open the AB&T for a decade, and nothing has happened. It's more important to look at what people need and want than to form a group with job titles and structures. That's why we're concentrating on the petition and publicity. We want to see if people would prefer Metro, one slow train an hour as proposed by SENRUG for some time in the distant future, or the buses and traffic jams they already have.'