Stations where closure/a parliamentary service is probably sensible

[34D]

So the Northern/TPE consultation document refers to the possible reduction of services at lightly-used stations. What stations on lines you know ought to be considered for a lesser service or closure?

A few suggestions from me:

Bayford (between Stevenage and Hertford) - never seems to be anyone getting on or off: close

Ulleskelf (between Church Fenton and York) - 5 services a day: close, and improve services at nearby Church Fenton

Tees Side Airport: close

Brigg, Kirton Lindsey & Gainsborough central: close

Your comments please, gentlemen

 

[frodshamfella]

So the Northern/TPE consultation document refers to the possible reduction of services at lightly-used stations. What stations on lines you know ought to be considered for a lesser service or closure?

A few suggestions from me:

Bayford (between Stevenage and Hertford) - never seems to be anyone getting on or off: close

Ulleskelf (between Church Fenton and York) - 5 services a day: close, and improve services at nearby Church Fenton

Tees Side Airport: close

Brigg, Kirton Lindsey & Gainsborough central: close

Your comments please, gentlemen

I flew from Tees Side Airport once years ago, but I don't know the area, but find it amazing than an airport station doesnt have a decent service, to get air passengers out of their cars, I know Tees Side is not Heathrow, but maybe if a more usable service to tie in with flight operations, would encourage more rail passengers to use it ?

 

[AndyW33]

I flew from Tees Side Airport once years ago, but I don't know the area, but find it amazing than an airport station doesnt have a decent service, to get air passengers out of their cars, I know Tees Side is not Heathrow, but maybe if a more usable service to tie in with flight operations, would encourage more rail passengers to use it ?

The trouble is that flight operations at Teesside are almost as minimal as the train service. There's 3 weekday Eastern Airways flights to/from Aberdeen, (using 29 seater planes); and 3 weekday KLM flights to/from Amsterdam, nowadays operated with their smallest aircraft, 80 seaters. Then there are odd one-off charter flights. The terminal building is now outside reasonable connecting walking distance from the station (it was moved after the station was built) so a shuttle bus would be needed. So an absolute maximum of 327 scheduled airline passengers each way a day, even if the planes were always full, many of whom are bound to be heading to places that are not on the rail route.
Many believe that the current operators of the airport see it as a property development opportunity, not a viable business.

 

[rf_ioliver]

Or alternatively these stations could be better or regularly served plus some advertising. In the case of the airport station why not some additional incentive to use the station?

Look at what happened to the North Downs Line when the service was made known and regular.

t.

Ian

 

[Anvil1984]

I flew from Tees Side Airport once years ago, but I don't know the area, but find it amazing than an airport station doesnt have a decent service, to get air passengers out of their cars, I know Tees Side is not Heathrow, but maybe if a more usable service to tie in with flight operations, would encourage more rail passengers to use it ?

There are only a 2/3 flights a day out of Teesside Airport and the station is the wrong side for the terminal so even if it had a better service it wouldnt be used unless another development sprung up nearby.

Disagree with closing Ulleskelf it does see a few passengers in the peak times and the public transport links between there and Church Fenton to replace it wont be great

 

[lincolnshire]

Station Closures.

Brigg, Kirton Lindsey & Gainsborough Stations all had there services curtailed back in B.R. days. You would have trains that suited passengers and were suitable to get to work by travelling by train, so what did they do move the train times then no longer suitable for travel by train to work and so hence the passengers changed to other means and never return to train as back then if you had to be at work at a set time that was the time as cast in stone not the flexible working as now.

So no passengers travelling and have train times where the day trippers to Cleethorpes just get there and then its time to go back home again and we seem to have lost all our passengers and operating cost for the line at that stage required 7 staff to pass one train down the line and a 2 shift operation.

So mounting cost and freight moved away from the line thats how it ends up as a Saturday only service thereby just keeping the service available on the line.

To re-establish a service will need a fair bit of time and advertiseing to get passengers to return and use it and also at times that suit passengers.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Ulleskelf won't close because HS2 ends just metres before it and it would be a double-whammy of rail pain for the village for their station to close as well. That wouldn't go down well at all, especially when the 'point' of HS2 is to get people out of cars and onto trains. Indeed, if they want to keep the locals happy they might even want to increase the number of services.

 

[edwin_m]

The Tees Valley Metro scheme includes replacing the Teeside Airport station by one a bit further west which is on the main access to the airport (but still not easy walking distance) and reasonably convenient for nearby businesses. The scheme is going nowhere at present, but appears to be what the local authorities want to do.

I believe the timber station has structural problems and may be closed on safety grounds at some stage.

 

[telstarbox]

Durham Tees Valley Airport is being 'refocused' as per the recent Master Plan, which will involve non-aviation development on the site. This should improve the case for relocating the station further west.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Durham Tees Valley Airport is being 'refocused' as per the recent Master Plan, which will involve non-aviation development on the site. This should improve the case for relocating the station further west.

It'll be extremely annoying if several million quid gets spent building new platforms for a station which no-one needs or wants to use. There's countless places in the country crying out for a station, yet campaigners are repeatedly told that there's no budget! :roll:

 

[The Planner]

Barlaston, Norton Bridge, Polesworth, Bearley, Claverdon, Pershore if Worcester Pwy opens.

 

[47802]

Station Closures.

Brigg, Kirton Lindsey & Gainsborough Stations all had there services curtailed back in B.R. days. You would have trains that suited passengers and were suitable to get to work by travelling by train, so what did they do move the train times then no longer suitable for travel by train to work and so hence the passengers changed to other means and never return to train as back then if you had to be at work at a set time that was the time as cast in stone not the flexible working as now.

So no passengers travelling and have train times where the day trippers to Cleethorpes just get there and then its time to go back home again and we seem to have lost all our passengers and operating cost for the line at that stage required 7 staff to pass one train down the line and a 2 shift operation.

So mounting cost and freight moved away from the line thats how it ends up as a Saturday only service thereby just keeping the service available on the line.

To re-establish a service will need a fair bit of time and advertiseing to get passengers to return and use it and also at times that suit passengers.

And was that actually the case and did people actually use it, I can remember travelling this line a few times weekday evenings back in the early 80's and it seemed to be a case of spot the passenger, I would guess a fair bit of commuter and travel demand from such Kirton Lindsey would be to such as Scunthorpe which of course the railway doesn't really serve.

I think we need a proper review of lighter used routes and stations, which would include the closure option, do nothing, any ways to reduce costs, improve the service etc. But of course as soon as you suggest that the anti's will be already mobilising their anti closure campaign. Certainly I have never been of the view that the current network should be fixed in stone, especially given what was retained wasn't exactly by design, or that every small town has a right to rail service.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I too agree that the mentality that some people have of any station closure being wrong is itself incorrect and whilst I probably wouldn't promote any closures there are some specific examples or lines I think that could be worth a look at (all of the top of my head, willing to be told otherwise on any!):
Belle Vue
Barlaston
Norton Bridge
Brampton (Suffolk)
Coombe Jn
Stations on Whitlocks End-Stratford-upon-Avon
Stations on Exeter-Barnstaple
Stations on Oxford-Worcester

 

[bluenoxid]

Pontefract Baghill

What is the point of this route (York - Sheffield) when it could still serve Pontefract but also serve Barnsley and Wakefield too.

 

[N Levers]

Let's be controversial... all stations west of Exeter...

Oh wait they tried that this year already...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Pontefract Baghill

What is the point of this route (York - Sheffield) when it could still serve Pontefract but also serve Barnsley and Wakefield too.

That's a fair point, considering Ponte is fairly well-served at its' other 2 stations. If it was in a similar situation to Brigg (only station serving the town) or Gainsborough Central (significantly better-sited than the alternative) there'd be a case for a better service- but all other stations on the route are served by other services, and Tanshelf is better-sited than Baghill (or Monkhill) anyway. There are perhaps cases where the laws designed to prevent closures do more harm than good- it might be controversial but this could be one of them!

While we're on the subject of Pontefract, it always surprised me that Grand Central call at Monkhill (which is in the middle of nowhere) rather than Tanshelf, which is closer to both the town centre and the racecourse. Monkhill has marginally longer platforms but as 180s are too long for both, as well as both Brighouse and Mirfield, and have SDO, that shouldn't be an issue. The only thing I can think that Monkhill has in its favour is a car park and hourly connections from Leeds/Castleford.

 

[Rapidash]

Let's be controversial... all stations west of Exeter...

Oh wait they tried that this year already...

Har har de har har

If we're playing a numbers game, then half the branches in Norfolk are about to be toast.

 

[Searle]

I've seen a few people use Bayford, honest!

 

[bnm]

Let's be controversial... all stations west of Exeter...

Oh wait they tried that this year already...

Did they? The only stations that had no train service west of Exeter, during the entire time the seawall was being repaired, were Exeter St Thomas, Starcross, Dawlish Warren, Dawlish and Teignmouth.

 

[Rapidash]

Did they? The only stations that had no train service west of Exeter, during the entire time the seawall was being repaired, were Exeter St Thomas, Starcross, Dawlish Warren, Dawlish and Teignmouth.

What did Torbay do to be forgotton so often?! It's bigger than bloomin' Exeter :cry: Not sure a shuttle to Newton can be classed as a proper service!

 

[6Gman]

Ardwick.

Minimal use, and stopping trains there reduces capacity at a very heavily used location.

 

[12CSVT]

Ardwick.

Minimal use, and stopping trains there reduces capacity at a very heavily used location.

Just about every westbound TPE service seems to stop there.

 

[TEW]

Stations on Exeter-Barnstaple
Stations on Oxford-Worcester

Some stations between Exeter and Barnstaple have decent usage, others aren't so busy. Bar a couple of stations on the Cotswold Line which receive a minimal service, most the stations are pretty busy. They certainly warrant their current service, which is much better that parliamentary.

 

[bb21]

Stations on Exeter-Barnstaple

Public transport links along that route is poor, so the railway provides an essential link for many along the route.

There are possibly one or two stations I can think of that may warrant closure, but the majority should certainly be retained.

 

[tsr]

Look at what happened to the North Downs Line when the service was made known and regular.

Being more regular is one thing, but being more frequent is another. Changing some of the 1tp2h calls to 1tph request stops, and introducing better access on foot from some of the settlements, might just work wonders. Such a change would lead to a rather more proportionate service compared to frequencies on all other local lines - many of which feature villages of similar importance & size but higher custom.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Before I answer these two posts I think I should point out that I thought it was obvious I was reffering to smaller stations as per the OP requested.

Some stations between Exeter and Barnstaple have decent usage, others aren't so busy. Bar a couple of stations on the Cotswold Line which receive a minimal service, most the stations are pretty busy. They certainly warrant their current service, which is much better that parliamentary.

I was referring to the likes of Combe and Ascott which have (to the nearest thousand) 2,000 a year. Of course there is a question of whether that is to do with the 10 trains a week both stations receive or because they are in the arse end of nowhere, but like someone else upthread said though, there needs to be a proper analysis though. Obviously you would retain Hanborough, Charlbury, Kingham, Moreton, Honeybourne and Evesham with hopefully a more clockface and memorable timetable.

Public transport links along that route is poor, so the railway provides an essential link for many along the route.

There are possibly one or two stations I can think of that may warrant closure, but the majority should certainly be retained.

(And to TEW too...) The two that spring to mind immediately are Chapelton (which serves absolutely nothing judging by Google Maps) and Portsmouth Arms which again serves very little. The two between themselves rack up about a thousands passengers a year. You could perhaps also argue Lapford, King's Nympton and Newton St Cyres need similar study; but obviously Crediton, Eggesford, Copplestone and Umberleigh are very well patronised for such an empty region.

 

[richw]

Before I answer these two posts I think I should point out that I thought it was obvious I was reffering to smaller stations as per the OP requested.



I was referring to the likes of Combe and Ascott which have (to the nearest thousand) 2,000 a year. Of course there is a question of whether that is to do with the 10 trains a week both stations receive or because they are in the arse end of nowhere, but like someone else upthread said though, there needs to be a proper analysis though. Obviously you would retain Hanborough, Charlbury, Kingham, Moreton, Honeybourne and Evesham with hopefully a more clockface and memorable timetable.



(And to TEW too...) The two that spring to mind immediately are Chapelton (which serves absolutely nothing judging by Google Maps) and Portsmouth Arms which again serves very little. The two between themselves rack up about a thousands passengers a year. You could perhaps also argue Lapford, King's Nympton and Newton St Cyres need similar study; but obviously Crediton, Eggesford, Copplestone and Umberleigh are very well patronised for such an empty region.

Portsmouth arms serves a very important place. A pub. 694 passengers last year used the station!

 

[RichmondCommu]

Peartree should have gone a long time a go. It's of no use for the nearby Rolls Royce plants in the same way that Sinfin North and Central were equally pointless. Not only that but none of the local residents have the means to get beyond Derby city centre and the current bus service is very good.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Places like Chapelton and Portsmouth Arms, being as they are on rural branch lines, I'm not sure what you'd gain from closing them. Considering how isolated they are I'd argue the figures aren't too bad- and trains calling there don't really cause a huge amount of congestion or delay any busy commuter services- they do aid tourism though during the Summer. The buildings and platforms are satisfactory for the usage they get and don't need millions spending on them to make them fit for purpose. Peartree on the other hand has very little use and even if it was given a regular hourly service would not see a massive increase in usage- though stopping every Crewe service there would cause problems for Cross Country services. Likewise Teesside Airport, if the platforms are going to need rebuilding we have to ask whether it's worth it, or if that money could be spent elsewhere and bring thousands of people onto the network that currently drive.

 

[Shimbleshanks]

Don't forget, also, that for people like ramblers, picnickers or cyclists a station being in the middle of nowhere can be a positive advantage, at least in tourist areas.