EXAMINATION in PUBLIC of the COUNTY DURHAM PLAN October

EXAMINATION IN PUBLIC OF THE COUNTY DURHAM PLAN

October-December 2019

Statement in response to Matters, Issues and Questions.

Prepared by Anthony Walker (ID 45175) on behalf of NECTAR – North East Combined Transport Activists Roundtable

M10 Transport and other infrastructure.

Question: Is there robust evidence to justify identifying and protecting the transport routes and facilities allocated and safeguarded in Policy 24? – Specifically the Leamside Line and associated infrastructure (34 km from Tursdale Junction near Ferryhill to Pelaw in Gateshead?)

Special note: This document is compiled for the Inspector on behalf of NECTAR whose member organisations are committed to the concept of transport sustainability, and which broadly support integrated transport and land use policies that reduce the need to travel.

Member bodies of NECTAR include representatives from CPRE, Cycling UK, Living Streets, Railfuture North East, Tyneside Public Transport Forum, Coastliners Rail Users’ Group, Tyne Valley Community Rail Partnership, Saltburn Line Users’ Group and Friends of the Earth.

NECTAR’s comments here are confined primarily to the question above posed by the Inspector relating to the Leamside Line (hereinafter referred to simply as ‘Leamside’). But first we feel bound to offer a brief input about Horden.

We obviously applaud the on-going construction of the new railway station there and congratulate DCC (and Network Rail) on bringing this project to fruition after many years of toil. Opening is scheduled for 2020.

Its coming will mean that Horden, plus the much larger settlement of Peterlee (population near 19,000) will have access to trains on the Durham Coast Line serving such as Middlesbrough, Seaham, Sunderland,

Heworth (for Metro connections),Newcastle and Carlisle. It is anticipated that young people living at Horden/Peterlee will find employment and educational opportunities, especially in Tees Valley and Tyneside, easier to access than currently. The station will also assist those who do not have a car, those who in any case prefer to travel by rail rather than road , and elderly people for whom driving is no longer viable. In short Horden/Peterlee station will create new and easier connectivity with the ‘outside world’ and give an obvious wider choice of travel mode to the entire population. It will, incidentally, also provide ready (sustainable) access for incoming visitors to the beautiful Durham coast with its fascinating bird life and wide range of unusual trees and shrubs.

Our obvious enthusiasm about the new station does have to be tempered, however, by the knowledge that Horden will only have an hourly train service. This might eventually become half –hourly depending on the outcome of current (apparently painful) negotiations between Network Rail and Arriva Northern, the relevant train operator. If ever there was an opportunity for a Local Authority with lead responsibility for transport to enter the “fray” and fight hard for the transport needs of its people (in east Durham), then this is it!

It is perhaps pertinent (albeit as an aside) to point out that the combined populations of Teesside, Wearside and Tyneside are roughly the same as those for Edinburgh and Glasgow combined. Yet the two Scottish cities are linked by no fewer than five separate, largely electrified direct railway lines whereas there is presently only one direct (non-electrified) train route between Middlesbrough and Newcastle boasting its one train per hour service. A classic, working example of how badly the North East is served by its local and regional rail network.

And so to Leamside!

NECTAR outlined much of its thinking on Leamside in its paper prepared for the pre-submission (draft) consultation. We aim not to repeat that here, but rather to highlight some history/background factors, with emphasis centred on the potential offered by a new Leamside Line.

Originally Leamside was part of the main London to Newcastle line and was used as such until 1872 when the route through Durham City was opened. Thereafter it retained a local Middlesbrough to Newcastle passenger stopping service until it was withdrawn in 1965 as part of the Beeching cut-back. This left only freight trains traversing the line until it was “mothballed” by British Rail as being superfluous to need following completion of electrification of the East Coast Main Line (ECML) in 1991.

But Leamside had another important function, namely to provide a diversionary facility in the event of any malfunction or planned engineering work on the two track main line section between Ferryhill (Tursdale) and Newcastle. Closure of Leamside meant this diversionary option was lost. Today in the event of a blockage between Ferryhill and Newcastle, operationally it is extremely difficult to mount any sort of effective rail diversions, so that resort to bus replacement and/or mass train cancellations becomes the usual modus operandi. We return to this matter at a later point.

A year or so after the mothballing/closure of Leamside (1991) there came an undertaking from DCC that it would safeguard the route from any developmental (building) encroachments so that future reinstatement could be effected if desired. This undertaking does, of course, still hold good.

Fast forward to 1999! By this time the twin tracks of Leamside had become the property of the privately owned Railtrack. In that year it announced an upgrade for the ECML to enhance capacity to meet increasing passenger and freight demand. This upgrade was to include reopening of Leamside and preliminary work on the line actually commenced in 2000. Railtrack wanted Leamside primarily for freight and diversionary purposes, but it indicated to DCC that it could also accommodate a local Tees-Tyne passenger service over the line. DCC became involved in the planning for this notably in relation to proposed new stations at Belmont and Fencehouses.

In 2002, however, Railtrack was declared bankrupt and all development work, including Leamside, ceased. The State financed Network Rail (NR)

assumed responsibility for the country’s rail infrastructure. Nothing much then happened over Leamside – the impression gained was that basically NR were not much interested in it.

Then in September 2006 NR announced that the Leamside rails were to be removed in order largely to thwart the attention of scrap dealers, but also to make the track bed safer for the many walkers who by now were using the route for recreational purposes. In fairness to NR, its decision to remove the rails was perfectly sensible. Nevertheless much anger was provoked, including at DCC and NEXUS, and among some local MP’s. NR was forced to halt its dismantling proposal, at least in the short term.

By way of a sort of peace offering in February 2007, NR agreed, albeit reluctantly, that an independent feasibility study be undertaken to assess whether or not there was a business case for the line’s reopening. The Study’s findings were published in January 2008. Here is a summary of the main ones:-

• Re-introduction of rail services found to be feasible • Best use of the line would be as a route for passenger services connecting the Tees Valley and Tyne and Wear city regions • Freight trains could also be accommodated • Long distance passenger trains could use Leamside if the ECML was closed • Re-opening would result in a range of economic benefits for the NE Region.

Subsequent behind the scenes lobbying of NR eventually caused a change of heart whereby its officers began to acknowledge that Leamside could play a strategic role in helping future ECML services develop and become better equipped to cope with increased demand. The Leamside rails, incidentally, were finally removed in period 2009/10.

In 2008 the then Labour Minister of State, Tom Harris, said publicly that Leamside re-opening would benefit the North East. The following year, his successor, Lord Adonis, actually suggested (to Bernard Garner the then Director General of NEXUS) that a reopening proposal for the line should

4 be prepared from within the local (NE) region. And the Lib Dems at national level (also in 2009) included Leamside in a list of 13 lines in the country that should be reopened “as soon as possible”. And as noted in our pre-submission paper Lord Adonis, during the course of a BBC news interview on Durham Station in February 2018, said “Leamside should have reopened ten years ago”. Even Chris Grayling in the latter part of his tenure as Minister of State agreed to Leamside being included in a (Conservative) list of a dozen or so rail lines in England and Wales that should be considered for reopening.

In attempting to answer the Inspector’s question “is there robust evidence to justify protecting Leamside” as per Policy 24, we start by flagging up the apparent support coming in from a wide range of organisations and fairly prominent individuals. (See list in our main submission). Self evidently Leamside isn’t a ‘basket case’! Somehow it has caught the eye of both transport professionals as well as many interested ‘lay’ onlookers.

But it is in relation to its potential to improve connectivity within its catchment area and to add stimulus to the local economy as well as improve the area’s general quality of life, that the case in favour of continuing to protect the Leamside route becomes compelling.

For instance, consider the case of Washington, albeit now in Tyne and Wear. With a population of some 55,000 it is one of the largest towns in Britain not connected to the national rail network, yet the Leamside track bed runs along its eastern flank. Frankly, in 2019, it is difficult to credit how Washington has been allowed to grow to its present size without the provision of any sort of rail connection. (In a paper entitled “Connecting Communities” published some years back by the Rail Delivery Group, Washington was singled out for mention as a place requiring a rail service urgently). Though there is employment available in Washington itself, there are a large number of outward peak hour commuters making mainly for Gateshead, Newcastle and Sunderland who have to rely entirely on road transport, bus or car, to get to work. A significant proportion of Washington traffic becomes snarled up on the wretched Newcastle Western By-Pass or on the main routes into Sunderland – and at present there is basically no rail alternative close to hand. An operational Leamside

5 providing either a heavy rail local service and/or Metro service would offer a very viable (and sustainable) and welcome alternative to peak hour road travel.

Construction of a new station at Fencehouses would enhance travel in that locality, whilst a station at Belmont immediately adjacent to the existing park and ride bus terminus would bring significant benefits over a wide area including of course Durham City. This ‘Parkway’ facility would be located on what would certainly prove to be one of the most effective ‘parkway’ and interchange sites in the country given its proximity to the A690, Junction 62 on the A1M and Durham City. It is a heaven made opportunity for the railway to put its sustainable attributes to good use. Belmont Parkway would be ideally placed to syphon off car traffic, particularly at peak times, by giving commuter drivers direct train services to both Tyneside and Teesside. The prospect of Belmont Parkway and all it would have to offer environmentally, and economically is, NECTAR contends, a very cogent reason why we should make sure protection of the Leamside route continues.

This is not the place to enter into detailed consideration of the technical issues surrounding the choice of design for a reinstated Leamside – e.g. heavy rail or metro, electrification or not, room for freight trains, provision for some timetabled long distance trains and diversions from the ECML when that route blocked?

We need, however, to comment briefly on the diversion issue in so far as it relates to the physical resilience of the ECML between Tursdale and Newcastle. There are at least three major viaducts in this sector, plus several substantial embankments. It would be churlish to ignore the vulnerability therefore of that sector to failures resulting from adverse climate conditions. NECTAR considers that to ignore the possibility of a significant blockage would be irresponsible particularly as there are basically no viable rail diversionary routes available. Clearly this is not a matter directly within the domain of DCC, but we would urge the Council to press the issue of ECML resilience and the consequences of any major disruption on what is a key national rail route in all the relevant forums. And of course it’s not just land slips or the like, but operational hitches as

6 well that can cause blockages. Recently for example (at approx. 9 45 am on 9 October 2019) a fire broke out on a Transpennine train travelling on the ECML between Tursdale and Durham. Both tracks had to be closed for over two hours whilst the incident was dealt with. Disruption to services lasted, however, through the morning and into the afternoon – there was no Leamside diversion option available!

Thus Leamside’s diversionary capability ought to be flagged up and this factor lends obvious weight to the arguments for retaining the current route protection in place – more pertinently, it gives weight to the need for actual reinstatement - SOON!

One technical issue we must mention in connection with diversions: namely, to enable any diversions to be effected quickly, Leamside should be electrified to the national 25,000 volt standard. Would this preclude use of the line by Metro trains? We think the employment of dual voltage Metro units might be possible, or even Metro trains traversing Leamside having a different power unit – battery maybe? These sort of issues do present a challenge, but given the recent advances in new train technology we don’t believe they are beyond solving!

We emphasised in our pre-submission paper our disappointment that though DCC had included encouraging verbal sentiments in the Plan about Leamside, it in fact was not intending to actually take a reopening proposal forward. The supposed cost of Leamside reopening was cited as the reason for apparent inaction.

NECTAR continues to emphasise the importance of Leamside initiatives being taken at local level in the first instance. Whilst it is clearly necessary for DCC to embrace the likes of Northern Powerhouse Rail, Transport for the North, NR et al, these bodies ALWAYS take heed of what is coming in from the “grass roots” when assessing whether or not to lend backing. We gave examples of current rail reopening campaigns which had made progress with the active involvement of the relevant LA’s. We continue to urge DCC to take note of what is happening elsewhere and really get the Leamside reinstatement bandwagon rolling. If sustainability in relation to transport is truly at the heart of the Plan, then NECTAR would say to DCC

“get active with Leamside now and help to bring to fruition an outcome that will greatly reinforce your sustainability credentials” as well as help improve the lives of a lot of people.

A matter NECTAR and other organisations have been asked to assess whilst preparing their various responses during the consultation process, has been whether or not the Plan has been “positively prepared”. Unfortunately, as things stand now, our answer in relation to Leamside has to be “no”. But there is still opportunity for DCC to change its stance and come out boldly to campaign for the line’s early reinstatement. Let us hope it does so.

In summary, the NECTAR answer to the Inspector’s specific question about the existence or otherwise of ‘robust evidence’ to justify continued protection of Leamside, is unequivocally “yes – that evidence is abundantly clear”. We hope we have successfully demonstrated this.

ENDS