Sunderland railway station.

[PhilY]

I'm not sure what the benefits are to Sunderland without the line heading South. There's houses in the way if heading North aswell. I'd wouldn't be surprised if that 3 mile cost as much as the whole of the rest of the Leamside line as I'm far as I'm aware they own the land and there's no obstructions anywhere, happy to be corrected on that though.

Being honest though, I wouldn't be surprised if they do all these nice plans and their real aim is to build the Metro from Washington to Pelaw only and nothing else gets done, citing every excuse in the book going but they never really had any intention to build the bit between Washington and Sunderland. Then at the same time announce that there's no need for the extra platforms at Sunderland the Northern entrance is scrapped, instead we're going to build some bus lanes instead.

We already know that there won’t be any re-opening of platforms, sadly. @Boris Bear confirmed it above.

That’s a massive blow for future economic development of Sunderland. Without those, extra direct rail connections are massively throttled.

The people of Sunderland should be in uproar about it - it’s a scandal.

 

[Osklen]

Since the buildings above the tracks are on what I presume is Network Rail owned land that would be for them to sort out. But the biggest problem to the station is the fact it only has 2 physical platforms which are clogged up with Metro trains. The recently demolished south entrance was on the footprint of the previous building so it didn't interfere with the platforms or track since it was built when they were in place. I would have made my first priority restoring the original 4 platforms and tracks and then making an access from the existing south entrance to the reinstated platforms, probably an escalator. I'm not suggesting that the roof could or should be rebuilt as it was of course but Leeds had a 1960s station as ghastly as ours and they built a new overall roof to modern specs. Nothing technically difficult about this, just tubular beams. That would be the platform environment sorted out. I would then secure funding for a new south entrance etc. I'm not a civil engineer and may be spouting shite but that's the order I think I would tackle it in.

I don’t disagree with the order you are suggesting to do it in but that is in an ideal situation.

My point was that to open up the 4 platforms it may not have been possible due to the structure of the buildings above which may hinder that?

This will be complicated by the ownership that whilst I would expect the freehold interest above being network rails there will be leases in place with business or other freehold interested parties so it may be complicated to get vacant possession of the units. Also funding likely to have to be spent by a given date rather than able to wait until everything resolved.

As you say nothing complicated with the building of the station other than any retaining structures due to its subterranean location, but the land issue may be the most difficult to revolve especially from a timing perspective.

 

[errant]

They're not Metro lines though so Nexus aren't interested.

Hopefully the reopening of the Northumberland line demonstrates that it’s a good thing and helps people see the benefits that can be had.

 

[Osklen]

It certainly looks that way but it has been billed as the new railway station and it has been claimed that it is ‘great’.

The ‘new railway station’ north end is just cosmetic if they aren’t addressing platform capacity. A ‘tarting up’ exercise and nothing more.

Look, I appreciate these things are expensive and complicated. I’ve been involved in some myself elsewhere.

However, I do not understand why our Council is not screaming from the rooftops about the regional Public Transport Executive (Nexus) actively attempting to thwart the development of rail connections (which needs capacity) in Sunderland given how important direct rail connections are to economic development. This state of affairs has been the same for years and it sounds like the Council is going to allow this to continue for the next 10 years because they’ve accepted funding for a plan which does not deliver greater platform capacity.

Don’t dare complain on here though because you’ll get shouted at by people who may well be from Sunderland and possibly even working for the Council / other public sector telling you to be grateful for what you’ve got.

It’s all very Oliver Twist!

Is it nexus that is stopping this or network rail / northern? Assume the station is owned by the latter? Presumably opening up a platform or two will allow more metros to come through the station as they won’t conflict with trains?

 

[Zimba]

What houses , where ? There are no houses built on the Leamside trackbed or Hylton to Penshaw. There's one at Offerton but it's clear of the trackbed and so is the former Coxgreen station

Coxgreen for a start, it's on the track bed I'm pretty sure. Whether it can get through I'm not sure, it's bloody tight if they can and I'm not sure the house is exactly going to be holding their arms to having a railway line 1m from their window.

Logon or register to see this image

Looking at the diagrams on here -

You must be logged on to see external links

. The green is the old platform imo, and X's are over the track bed, that shed is 100% on it but that alone wouldn't be bad to get arid of.

There's also the problem at the end of the Victoria Viaduct here:

Logon or register to see this image

It looks too tight to miss it. I could be wrong on both but it's going to be hard to miss both and either way they're not going to just sit back and allow a railway line pass their front door without serious compensation.

Hopefully the reopening of the Northumberland line demonstrates that it’s a good thing and helps people see the benefits that can be had.

Yeah totally agreed, it's sad the dislike for trains up here by politicans and councillers, yet they're perfectly fine at places like Leeds.

 

[No7]

Genuine question for anyone who knows -

What has the new station entrance actually delivered, apart from a better overall look and appearance?

So far, I’ve got

1. Toilets
2. Seating for 6 at entrance level

The current seating arrangement is temporary. Airport style rows of seats are on order and have been for 8 months, there is a delay with the supplier.

The council don’t decide what railway lines open and close, and who operates on them.

 

[PhilY]

Is it nexus that is stopping this or network rail / northern? Assume the station is owned by the latter? Presumably opening up a platform or two will allow more metros to come through the station as they won’t conflict with trains?

The station I believe is owned by Network Rail but operated (ie under a lease) by Nexus.

Nexus are the public transport authority for Tyne and Wear. Ultimately, they are the blockage but it would also need public funding from Department for Transport.

Much like Sunderland’s decades-overdue Combined Courts Centre, the city is far down the list in terms of funding priorities.

The current seating arrangement is temporary. Airport style rows of seats are on order and have been for 8 months, there is a delay with the supplier.

The council don’t decide what railway lines open and close, and who operates on them.

I know about operation of rail services. I haven’t criticised the council about that - the blame lies with Nexus. (Although really the Council should be pushing for return of PTE powers from Nexus).

Is it nexus that is stopping this or network rail / northern? Assume the station is owned by the latter? Presumably opening up a platform or two will allow more metros to come through the station as they won’t conflict with trains?

100%. Platform capacity is the big problem. (Along with a transport authority that actively wants to channel passengers north to NCL and has vigorously opposed attempts to expand services at Sunderland (and will do again in the future - which is mental when you think about it isn’t it?)

 

[PinzaC55]

I don’t disagree with the order you are suggesting to do it in but that is in an ideal situation.

My point was that to open up the 4 platforms it may not have been possible due to the structure of the buildings above which may hinder that?

This will be complicated by the ownership that whilst I would expect the freehold interest above being network rails there will be leases in place with business or other freehold interested parties so it may be complicated to get vacant possession of the units. Also funding likely to have to be spent by a given date rather than able to wait until everything resolved.

As you say nothing complicated with the building of the station other than any retaining structures due to its subterranean location, but the land issue may be the most difficult to revolve especially from a timing perspective.

Three of the platforms (the 2 currently in use and the one which has or had the light wall built on it) are unobstructed but I don't know how far the foundations of the buildings go over the disused platform.
I don't know the status or source of the funding and without knowing that I can't make a meaningful comment on it.
I do know that at the time the Metro was planned they issued a series of brochures and it showed the station with the original 4 platforms so I would hope that the shop foundations didn't block the platform but given the idiotic nature of the successive rebuildings my hope may be misplaced.

 

[Ava Ava Ava]

Leamside doesn't serve Sunderland City Centre, so not sure what this has to do with the station.



The Washington plans is just typical Nexus and wanting the Metro to go everywhere when it's not the right thing to go there, having a Metro to the outskirts of Washington just doesn't make sense, it should be national rail like the Northumberland Line but heading to South to places like Darlington, Middlesbrough or Durham.

You'd be mad to use the Metro from there to Sunderland, in most parts of Washington, because when your on a bus to Sunderland to get to the station, ie. the 56, why bother getting off as it's much easier and quicker and stay on all the way.

Logon or register to see this image

Something like the below would be much more useful, with a brand new Sunderland Parkway station to the South which has a London train, a Birmingham train and a Manchester train which some continue to Sunderland instead of Newcastle and then a local Northern service 3 TPH running from Newcastle via the Leamside down to somewhere and the new South Shields to Sunderland line continuing to the new Sunderland Parkway station.

It would be by far the most useful service than a confined loop which takes people to guess where, Newcastle. Getting the Leamside Line down to Ferryhill should be top priority though then working on getting the Sunderland branch done after (it's harder to do).

I agree that the metro to Washington is short term and the reopening of Leamside perhaps with station for Nissan and the other stuff going up around there should a long term aspiration.

I'll bow to those who know about public transport around this area, as I live a long way north in the Scottish Borders.

However, the costs for the full Leamside reopening are enormous, £700 to £900 million has been quoted so though desirable, it is hard to see that being funded in the next 20 years.

That said, the new station at Brent Cross opening today cost £240m as will a new one south of Cambridge and the same at Colchester.

The Leamside reopening has been proposed as a way of relieving pressure on the east coast main line, with possibly the Ferryhill station and a possible Durham Parkway at Bowburn as the only intermediate stations, not much use to Sunderland.

Your Sunderland Parkway perhaps in the Follingsby area would make perfect sense.

I said in my post above, there should be a phased approach with extra platforms built (reopened if anything is still there) but increasing trains north is difficult as there are lots of shared tracks beyond the station.

Once the new metro trains are delivering the promised ten minute frequency, it restricts the possible expansion of National Rail services even more in the future.

 

[PinzaC55]

Is it nexus that is stopping this or network rail / northern? Assume the station is owned by the latter? Presumably opening up a platform or two will allow more metros to come through the station as they won’t conflict with trains?

Having 4 platforms would allow Metro Trains to be segregated from heavy rail trains. Originally the 4 platforms were 2 southbound on the east side and 2 northbound on the west side so it would make sense for the 2 centre ones to be metro and the 2 outer ones to be heavy rail.

Coxgreen for a start, it's on the track bed I'm pretty sure. Whether it can get through I'm not sure, it's bloody tight if they can and I'm not sure the house is exactly going to be holding their arms to having a railway line 1m from their window.

Logon or register to see this image

Looking at the diagrams on here -

You must be logged on to see external links

. The green is the old platform imo, and X's are over the track bed, that shed is 100% on it but that alone wouldn't be bad to get arid of.

There's also the problem at the end of the Victoria Viaduct here:

Logon or register to see this image

It looks too tight to miss it. I could be wrong on both but it's going to be hard to miss both and either way they're not going to just sit back and allow a railway line pass their front door without serious compensation.


Yeah totally agreed, it's sad the dislike for trains up here by politicans and councillers, yet they're perfectly fine at places like Leeds.

Zimba , I'm sure you are a canny lad ( or lass) but you fry my brain. Sometimes I spout shite but I know what I am talking about on this subject.

 

[Osklen]

Having 4 platforms would allow Metro Trains to be segregated from heavy rail trains. Originally the 4 platforms were 2 southbound on the east side and 2 northbound on the west side so it would make sense for the 2 centre ones to be metro and the 2 outer ones to be heavy rail.


Zimba , I'm sure you are a canny lad ( or lass) but you fry my brain. Sometimes I spout shite but I know what I am talking about on this subject.

I get that opening more platforms is the key to unlocking further train services but trying to get my head around who is the blockage? Is it nexus because of the possible property issues we discussed (assume there are) or just a lack of funding? Or is it nexus who are against it? I assume nexus could run extra services in the event of more platforms being available so would make sense that they lobbied for it as well though it may be the lack of viability of running more metro services?

 

[PhilY]

I get that opening more platforms is the key to unlocking further train services but trying to get my head around who is the blockage? Is it nexus because of the possible property issues we discussed (assume there are) or just a lack of funding? Or is it nexus who are against it? I assume nexus could run extra services in the event of more platforms being available so would make sense that they lobbied for it as well though it may be the lack of viability of running more metro services?

The primary blocker is Nexus. Additional direct connections for Sunderland is against their policy. They have a history of blocking and opposing private sector operators who wanted to run extra direct services to/from Sunderland and will continue to do so.

The second challenge is funding, as with all infrastructure projects.

 

[Zimba]

Having 4 platforms would allow Metro Trains to be segregated from heavy rail trains. Originally the 4 platforms were 2 southbound on the east side and 2 northbound on the west side so it would make sense for the 2 centre ones to be metro and the 2 outer ones to be heavy rail.


Zimba , I'm sure you are a canny lad ( or lass) but you fry my brain. Sometimes I spout shite but I know what I am talking about on this subject.

I'm still not convinced they'll fit through there like, and I'm not convinced they can miss the house at the end of the bridge but I'm happy to be proven wrong tbh.

Btw for Sunderland station there's pics behind the wall btw here:

You must be logged on to see external links

and there seems to be something on the track like, not sure what though. Wouldn't they have to narrow the current platform, if I'm right aswell because didn't they extend over what would've been track in one of the refurbs. Seems quite an expensive job really, without shutting the thing completely as much as it's probably the most useful thing to do tbh.

 

[Osklen]

The primary blocker is Nexus. Additional direct connections for Sunderland is against their policy. They have a history of blocking and opposing private sector operators who wanted to run extra direct services to/from Sunderland and will continue to do so.

The second challenge is funding, as with all infrastructure projects.

But is that on the bases of the current arrangement rather than having 3 or 4 platforms?

If there were more platforms why would they want to stop more services through Sunderland particularly if it didn’t affect the metro services?

 

[PhilY]

I agree that the metro to Washington is short term and the reopening of Leamside perhaps with station for Nissan and the other stuff going up around there should a long term aspiration.

I'll bow to those who know about public transport around this area, as I live a long way north in the Scottish Borders.

However, the costs for the full Leamside reopening are enormous, £700 to £900 million has been quoted so though desirable, it is hard to see that being funded in the next 20 years.

That said, the new station at Brent Cross opening today cost £240m as will a new one south of Cambridge and the same at Colchester.

The Leamside reopening has been proposed as a way of relieving pressure on the east coast main line, with possibly the Ferryhill station and a possible Durham Parkway at Bowburn as the only intermediate stations, not much use to Sunderland.

Your Sunderland Parkway perhaps in the Follingsby area would make perfect sense.

I said in my post above, there should be a phased approach with extra platforms built (reopened if anything is still there) but increasing trains north is difficult as there are lots of shared tracks beyond the station.

Once the new metro trains are delivering the promised ten minute frequency, it restricts the possible expansion of National Rail services even more in the future.

All good points.

The most cost effective way to improve direct connections for Sunderland is to knock down that wall at Sunderland which covers up the mothballed platforms and use the Durham Coast line.

(I jest - obviously there would be cost in signalling, track and platform works but they wouldn’t have the scale of major infrastructure projects).

First, though, control of the city’s public transport has to be removed from Nexus (or a successor body as part of a Combined Authority which shares the sane philosophy as Nexus).

But is that on the bases of the current arrangement rather than having 3 or 4 platforms?

If there were more platforms why would they want to stop more services through Sunderland particularly if it didn’t affect the metro services?

Well, I can only speak from personal experience. They have deliberately limited platform capacity at Sunderland so that they can follow their policy of supporting Metro and Newcastle Central.

You have to remember too that track access on the national railway network (which includes Sunderland) is ultimately determined by the Office of Rail and Road. Additional platform capacity would remove the best argument Nexus have preventing new services going to other than Wearside and Tyneside. For that reason, they will fight hard to prevent additional platform capacity ever happening.

They control the PTE powers for the city of Sunderland. It’s crazy.

 

[PinzaC55]

I get that opening more platforms is the key to unlocking further train services but trying to get my head around who is the blockage? Is it nexus because of the possible property issues we discussed (assume there are) or just a lack of funding? Or is it nexus who are against it? I assume nexus could run extra services in the event of more platforms being available so would make sense that they lobbied for it as well though it may be the lack of viability of running more metro services?

I don't know the inside dealings of Nexus but they do seem to be Newcastle centric. Given that HS2 has been cancelled and Rishi is now scattering the "saved" money around like confetti I find it hard to believe that a few million to sort the platforms and track out would blow a hole in his finances. A project like this needs to be thought through and my impression as an outsider is that it hasn't been thought through. I think that when the money is found the site foreman will look at what's already been done and shout "Whee the f*** did this ?".

 

[PhilY]

All good points.

The most cost effective way to improve direct connections for Sunderland is to knock down that wall at Sunderland which covers up the mothballed platforms and use the Durham Coast line.

(I jest - obviously there would be cost in signalling, track and platform works but they wouldn’t have the scale of major infrastructure projects).

First, though, control of the city’s public transport has to be removed from Nexus (or a successor body as part of a Combined Authority which shares the sane philosophy as Nexus).

Well, I can only speak from personal experience. They have deliberately limited platform capacity at Sunderland so that they can follow their policy of supporting Metro and Newcastle Central.

You have to remember too that track access on the national railway network (which includes Sunderland) is ultimately determined by the Office of Rail and Road. Additional platform capacity would remove the best argument Nexus have preventing new services going to other than Wearside and Tyneside. For that reason, they will fight hard to prevent additional platform capacity ever happening.

They control the PTE powers for the city of Sunderland. It’s crazy.

Edit - as I’ve said previously, Nexus’s policy is to channel national rail traffic through Newcastle Central - this adds around two hours to most return journeys for passengers who live in Sunderland (slightly less if you instead travel to Durham but that comes at the cost of railways car parking charges or taxi fares each way).

A city the size of Sunderland should have at least some direct rail connections to Leeds / Manchester / Birmingham etc.

It is essential for our economic development as well as our quality of life.

It could be done immediately if our PTE (Passenger Transport Executive) required rail franchises to serve the city…..but they don’t do this, citing platform capacity first, but the reason actually being that they want to channel traffic through Newcastle Central because passenger numbers through stations are primary evidence when it comes to funding decisions.

They also do not and have not supported additional (or better slots) for Grand Central, which provides our only direct link to York and London, on an open access basis.

It is crazy that the people of Sunderland tolerate this. We’ve certainly never had the opportunity to vote on it.

 

[Dark Traveller]

All good points.

The most cost effective way to improve direct connections for Sunderland is to knock down that wall at Sunderland which covers up the mothballed platforms and use the Durham Coast line.

(I jest - obviously there would be cost in signalling, track and platform works but they wouldn’t have the scale of major infrastructure projects).

First, though, control of the city’s public transport has to be removed from Nexus (or a successor body as part of a Combined Authority which shares the sane philosophy as Nexus).

Well, I can only speak from personal experience. They have deliberately limited platform capacity at Sunderland so that they can follow their policy of supporting Metro and Newcastle Central.

You have to remember too that track access on the national railway network (which includes Sunderland) is ultimately determined by the Office of Rail and Road. Additional platform capacity would remove the best argument Nexus have preventing new services going to other than Wearside and Tyneside. For that reason, they will fight hard to prevent additional platform capacity ever happening.

They control the PTE powers for the city of Sunderland. It’s crazy.

It isn‘t Nexus anymore that looks at expansion etc, Transport North East snatched up those little projects and come April will fall under the powers of the elected Mayor of newly formed North East Mayoral Combined Authority.

 

[PhilY]

It isn‘t Nexus anymore that looks at expansion etc, Transport North East snatched up those little projects and come April will fall under the powers of the elected Mayor of newly formed North East Mayoral Combined Authority.

Different name, same people in decision making capacities, same policies?

 

[Dark Traveller]

Different name, same people?

No idea. Nexus will remain an independent body, but TNE are currently fighting to hold onto some major project stuff, like other bodies like NELEP, etc. The wheeling and dealing behind the scenes with the various mayoral candidates began in earnest awhile ago.