Another recent article in the Northumberland Gazette raises concerns about dualling of the A1 between Morpeth and Ellingham potentially being cancelled once again.
In one of our recent blog posts, we set out the case for expanding the capacity of the East Coast Main Line (ECML) rather than dualling in detail, but in a nutshell here are the key arguments against the A1 and in favour of the ECML.
Economic
The benefit to cost ratio of dualling the A1 is in a range of 0.8 to 1.2, meaning for each £1 spent, you might expect somewhere between 80p and £1.20 in economic return. That means there is a real risk that you could actually lose money on the ‘investment’ into it, and at best you make a very modest return.
By comparison, figures from the ECMA (a consortium of local authorities along the East Coast Main Line) comissioned a study which stated that overall, for every £1 invested in the ECML, it generated a £2.73 economic return, nearly tripling what was originally invested.
The investment into the Northumberland Line is a clear example of railway investment benefitting an area already quite well served by dual carriageways (A189 Spine Road), with house builders such as Miller Homes stating this publically due to improved connections into Newcastle. The A189 has existed for decades, and the areas surrounding it have struggled economically in that time, the return of the railway is hopefully the beginning of a brighter future for the area, and in our view, is relatively easily expanded upin using existing lines.
Investing into the Hepscott Line for example, which links Pegswood and Bedlington together could allow a direct northbound connection from Blyth, Bedlington, and North Tyneside to North Northumberland, and Scotland. It would be upgrading an existing route, already regularly used for the North Blyth- Fort William ‘Alcan’ freight, so should be quite a cost-effective route to utilise.
Economically, rail investment pound for pound would, from the evidence provided by rail advocacy grouos, appear generate a much greater return on investment and be a more sure way to boost the local economy rather than road schemes which could potentially be loss making.
Even multi-lane motorways like the M6, A1(M) and many more still suffer from traffic problems, so dualling alone won’t magically ‘solve traffic’.
Safety
As stated in more detail in the previous post, the effect on safety is limited by dualling a road, as research by Space 4 Gosforth has shown, the accident rates on dualled sections are very similar to those on the single carriageway sections. It also doesn’t improve safety on other roads where people have tragically lost lives or been seriously injured.
Again, rail travel is far safer; with nationally no passenger fatalities since the tragic accident at Stonehaven, Scotland in August 2020, and on the ECML in Northumberland, the last fatal accident being the derailment of the ‘Aberdonian’ in May 1969. Moving more people by rail and other modes of transport is far safer than driving.
Even bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive state openly that ‘Driving for work is one of the most dangerous things workers will do.‘, and infers modal shift away from roads ‘Eliminate or reduce long road journeys by combining with other ways of working or other forms of transport. For example, move goods in bulk by train and then arrange for local distribution by van or lorry, or arrange meetings using conference calls or video links.‘
So again, investing into the ECML would allow more railfreight to go by rail rather than road, as well as more people travelling by rail, improving safety. The investment into the Northumberland Coast Loop, alongside the wider ECML upgrades coukd allow for greater modal shift of people travelling between SE Northumberland/North Tyneside and North Northumberland/Scotland by reducing journey times and making it a ‘one seat ride’
Sustainability
Movement of both people and goods by rail is one if the most efficient modes of transport possible and one of the cleanest, even considering the continued uses of some diesel trains at present, though many on the ECML are 100% electric.
Going forward, investment into improving the electrical capacity (a known constraint between Newcastle and Edinburgh) would allow for longer and heavier electric trains that can have more seats or tons of freight per train.
In comparison, just the 11 miles of Morpeth to Ellingham dualling is forecast to release 1.44m tonnes of CO² over 60 years, which goes against Net Zero commitments made both locally by Northumberland County Council, and nationally by the UK Government.
While the ‘loop’ section of the Northumberland Coast Loop between Morpeth North Junction and Benton Junction (taking in the Bedlington to Newcastle section of the Northumberland Line is currently unwired), that issue can overcome by bi-mode or tri-mode units, many of which are now battery-electric type for passenger services, and longer term wiring of the route has been identified by Network Rail, which could be brought forward to allow more trains to operate on electricity rather than diesel going forward.
There are also the wider environmental impacts of road traffic than just tailpipe emissions, even if road transport was to become 100% electric, those vehicles would still add to congestion, parking problems and the loss of space to urban sprawl and other connected issues.
Conclusion – Invest in the ECML/N.C.L.
Based on the above data and evidence, investment into the ECML & N.C.L. through Northumberland would be a much more sound investment from every angle than adding road capacity to the A1.
The Northumberland Coast Loop 