Northern and TPE Consultation Document

[David Barrett]

Forgive my lack of knowledge of certain railway terms, but what exactly is a "Consultation Andrex"....

I really wanted to use something stronger but you can't get hold of Izal anywhere these days.

 

[northwichcat]

Forgive my lack of knowledge of certain railway terms, but what exactly is a "Consultation Andrex"....

Obviously consultation on what type of toilet rolls should be used in the train toilets.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Obviously consultation on what type of toilet rolls should be used in the train toilets.

Tut Tut JCollins Thats rather a Bog Standard reply

 

[edwin_m]

Is Andrex the telegraphic code for an excursion to St Andrews Road?

 

[Greybeard33]

Reducing services at stations may actually wipe out what demand there is on the basis that the station isn't actually viable to use.

Is that necessarily a Bad Thing? The consultation document states (my bolding):

We firmly believe the rolling stock on Northern services needs to be improved so that passengers recognise a step change. But the more expensive the trains (and brand-new trains are likely to be the most expensive option of all), the harder it will be to justify current service levels where demand is low, and to afford to improve services where demand is increasing.

and asks:

What are your views on giving priority to improving the quality of the Northern rolling stock at the expense of some reduction in lightly used services (e.g. fewer calls at low-use stations)?

Precisely, noting that there is an assurance in the consultation Andrex as to there being no intention of closures................in this particular franchise period.

No closures, but it does contemplate:

Reducing the number of stops at stations used by few people to accelerate the service for through passengers

and asks:

Please indicate, with evidence where available, where passengers would be better served, and revenue increased, by:

• Reducing the number of calls at low-use stations?
• Increasing frequencies on busier sections of routes or at busier times?
• Speeding up the service for longer-distance passengers?
• ....

In the extreme, I guess this could allow a reduction to "parliamentary" level.

 

[Class 170101]

And your last sentence Greybeard33 is something the industry needs to guard against. Just because a rail station is only used by 20,000 people per year (or whatever low figure one wishes to quote) doesn't mean its not viable.

 

[David Barrett]

Is that necessarily a Bad Thing? The consultation document states (my bolding):

No closures, but it does contemplate:

In the extreme, I guess this could allow a reduction to "parliamentary" level.

As to whether it's a bad thing would depend upon your being one of a group of individuals who depended upon railway services at a particular station wouldn't it?

No closures indeed, but that was not my point, that came a few dots later..... in the period of this franchise, being the operative segment of my comment.

So yes, this could allow (not the word I would use, collusion springs more to mind here) a reduction to "Parliamentary" level thereby paving the way to the justification of more extreme measures in the following franchise.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

And your last sentence Greybeard33 is something the industry needs to guard against. Just because a rail station is only used by 20,000 people per year (or whatever low figure one wishes to quote) doesn't mean its not viable.

Do we not learn anything from history. Matters are cyclical and a current view of a number of reopened railway stations show usage that was not the case in the station closure programmes of some 50/60 years ago.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Do we not learn anything from history. Matters are cyclical and a current view of a number of reopened railway stations show usage that was not the case in the station closure programmes of some 50/60 years ago.

One would hope that lessons have been learned from the past... Nevertheless, there are certain stations within the 'Northern' franchise area which are of literally no use whatsoever. A case in point being Teesside Airport station, which has little in the way of surrounding population and is poorly located for the airport it claims to serve- an airport which in itself is not exactly subject to overwhelming demand!

 

[Harpers Tate]

Likewise, number of passengers needs to be viewed not in isolation but against the service itself. One might imagine, for example, a settlement the size of Brigg generating more traffic than it does - until you look at the timetable.

In other words, 20k pax pa on a 20 minute frequency vs 20k pax pa on an hourly frequency vs 20k pax pa on a 2 x daily frequency (if there is such a place) are all very different use-cases.

And none of these statistics take account of latent demand - demand that's not satisfied by the service currently provided for whatever reason, nor the development potential offered by suitable marketing and/or things like Park & Ride operations.

 

[northwichcat]

One thing to be careful of with reductions in frequency is not removing a service at a useful time. Say if you were to reduce Ashley railway station's frequency to 2 hourly, having the 1459 Chester-Manchester and 1659 Chester-Manchester stopping there would still allow most schoolkids and commuters going to Ashley from the Knutsford direction to get home at a sensible time, but if those two missed out Ashley and the 1559 and 1759 services stopped then it would make a big difference.

What I can see happening is some lines with an hourly all-stops service becoming like the Manchester Oxford Rd-Liverpool stoppers where some stations get a half-hourly service, others get an hourly services and others get a 2 hourly service. Doing that will allow service enhancements at the busiest stations but might mean 1 less diagram is required over keeping at least an hourly frequency at all stations.

Also worth remembering some low-usage stations can get reasonable demand in the summer and low demand in the winter.

 

[yorksrob]

This whole consultation document reeks of the treasury.

 

[Carlisle]

This whole consultation document reeks of the treasury.

Maybe so ,but at least at the moment it appears a genuine attempt to try and reduce ongoing subsidies without resorting to the age old philosophy of line closures

 

[Greybeard33]

Passenger railways are best at transporting large numbers of people long distances or through congested urban areas. Small rural communities that generate footfall of less than a few dozen per day can be more efficiently served by road transport (bus, taxi, private car and bicycle).

If the service between principal stations can be improved, in speed and/or frequency, by reducing intermediate stops, that will stimulate modal shift to the railway which may far outweigh the loss of passengers from the lightly-used stations (some of whom will drive to the nearest main station instead).

Most of our stations were constructed in the 19th century when travel patterns were considerably different to today's. Just because, 150 years ago, a particular village successfully lobbied (or blackmailed!) a railway promoter to get its own station, it does not follow that that station must necessarily have an hourly service in perpetuity, regardless of the subsidy required.

In my view, attempting to operate the Northern network as a giant heritage railway will eventually lead to more drastic cuts, when the subsidies become politically unacceptable. The railway industry, like all others, must adapt to survive.

 

[yorksrob]

Passenger railways are best at transporting large numbers of people long distances or through congested urban areas. Small rural communities that generate footfall of less than a few dozen per day can be more efficiently served by road transport (bus, taxi, private car and bicycle).

If the service between principal stations can be improved, in speed and/or frequency, by reducing intermediate stops, that will stimulate modal shift to the railway which may far outweigh the loss of passengers from the lightly-used stations (some of whom will drive to the nearest main station instead).

Most of our stations were constructed in the 19th century when travel patterns were considerably different to today's. Just because, 150 years ago, a particular village successfully lobbied (or blackmailed!) a railway promoter to get its own station, it does not follow that that station must necessarily have an hourly service in perpetuity, regardless of the subsidy required.

In my view, attempting to operate the Northern network as a giant heritage railway will eventually lead to more drastic cuts, when the subsidies become politically unacceptable. The railway industry, like all others, must adapt to survive.

The Northern railway network isn't run like a giant heritage network, if it was, there'd be lots of staff in pretty uniforms everywhere.

What worries me is that stopping fewer trains at these smaller stations is offered as a necessary cost cutting measure. However, not stopping trains at smaller stations isn't going to save any money as:

a) they aren't staffed in the first place and
b) they tend to be intermediate stations, so the train still has to run, to serve the larger stations along the line

So how exactly are they going to make these savings ? What else is on their list.

 

[David Barrett]

Maybe so ,but at least at the moment it appears a genuine attempt to try and reduce ongoing subsidies without resorting to the age old philosophy of line closures

As yet.

 

[yorksrob]

The announcement this morning on "HS3" illustrates the disconnect in the minds of the establishment between the "bread and butter" railway and new high speed lines. They need to understand that whatever the benefits of a high speed line, the local network is just as important to the economy, if not moreso than high speed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As the consultation was open to the public, I submitted the following response below:

TO1
Government should be aware that the railway plays an important role in reducing road congestion and enabling employment and leisure opportunities in the PTE areas. This is vastly helped by the fact that fares in these areas (in which incomes are also generally lower than in other areas of the country) are competitive with other forms of transport. A former secretary of state once complained that the railways were a "rich man's toy", however, it is my experience as a regular commuter and leisure traveller by rail in the North, that this is not the case around the cities of Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield, due mainly to competitive fares. Infact, the Government ought to consider whether fares outside the PTE areas are too high to allow rail to play its full social and economic role in these areas.
To give an example, I regularly travel from Wakefield to London, and using advanced purchase tickets can obtain a return journey for as low as £21. However, I also regularly travel to Whitehaven, a shorter distance on non-InterCity rolling stock, yet even with the complications of split fares, it is impossible to get this return journey down to less than £40. The railway should be doing more to attract people to services outside TPE areas by more competitive pricing structures (it is worth noting for example, that many of these routes don't even offer an off-peak fare).

TO2
In this question, you cite the example of "fewer calls at low use stations". Most of these stations are already unstaffed and are situated in between larger settlements. The train would still have to run between the larger settlements, so the only cost saving would be an extremely marginal saving on fuel associated with not having to decelerate and accelerate at the station. Missing out these stations would make them less useful to their communities as passengers need to be able to make a day trip, for the train to be a viable option, i.e. there need to be services in the early morning and late evening. I therefore contend that this approach would be entirely counterproductive.
Other cuts to services would be equally counterproductive. For example evening and morning services need to be maintained as a priority for rail to be a viable alternative (i.e. to allow people to do a day's business using the railway network), and in many cases should be improved. As an example, I often catch the last Hallam line train out of Leeds at 22:37. This is already too early, and is frequently more crowded than my morning commute, and I have observed similar situations on other evening services. Making cuts to services in rural areas would also be entirely counterproductive and should be resisted. I have travelled on trains on the Whitby branch that have had all seats taken as well as very well loaded services on the Bentham line and believe that we should be improving the current inadequate timetables on these services.
I believe that the whole approach implied by this question, of concentrating resources on a few heavily used routes to the detriment of the social railway would be disastrous for rail in the north and a throwback to the failed policies of the Beeching era. The Government should instead procure an all-purpose light weight DMU that can be internally configured for either longer distance rural, or shorter distance urban journeys, and can be built in enough numbers across the UK to achieve economies of scale whilst providing for pacer replacement, and passenger growth.
Government should also recognise that users of rural railways in the north, contribute to new trains through rolling stock leasing charges (even though many of these routes don’t tend to benefit from new rolling stock) as well as capital investment in the network through track access charges, even though these routes tend to have minimal signalling etc. It is therefore over simplistic and wrong to suggest that passengers in the North alone receive subsidy and should be singled out for cuts.

NTP4
Options for North trans-pennine should consider the impact on local connections and transport opportunities to other areas. For example, the present TPE service allows passengers from Leeds to reach Whitby with one change at Middlesborough. Care should be taken to ensure that such connectivity isn't compromised by any proposed changes.

STP1
The Government should give serious consideration to longer term solutions to issues on this route. In particular, they should consider the potential benefits to reopening the Peak district route between Peak Forest and Matlock (via Bakewell) to passenger and freight services. This could potentially have a number of benefits for the area including:
• Allowing North West/East Midlands passengers to be carried via Bakewell, therefore releasing capacity on the Hope valley route for local services and passengers travelling from Manchester to Sheffield and places further East
• Providing faster journey times and improved connectivity between the North West and the East Midlands
• Provide an alternative passenger route between Manchester and London
• Provide increased opportunities for tourism within the Peak District national park and improvements to connectivity in the National Park area (as referenced in the 2004 study)https://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/images/derby-mancester-rail_main_report_full_tcm44-21359.pdf
• Provide an alternative route for freight traffic to relieve congestion on the Hope Valley route into the future.
In particular, the Government should note that the 2004 study on reopening the Peak district route only considered possible local benefits of such a reinstatement, and that consideration should be given of how all of the above local, regional and national benefits can be combined to provide a business case for reopening this line (thus providing additional capacity on the Hope valley route)

STP4
When investigating options for serving Cleethorpes, serious consideration should be given to running a worthwhile daily service via Brigg that will encompass stops at Gainsborough Central, Kirton Lindsey and Brigg stations.

NTSR1
I am not convinced that there is a great amount of benefit to having fewer stops at smaller stations. I do not believe that this approach would yield much money in terms of savings (see my response to TO2) and believe that this would create a very large dis-benefit to users of those stations in return for a very small benefit for passengers passing through.
In my experience, services on the Whitby branch are very busy and could benefit from better frequencies, particularly at weekends. I believe that connectivity between Cumbria and Yorkshire could be improved by having better connections and later last departure times at Carnforth and Carlisle. At the moment, the last service from Carlisle to Leeds via Settle on a Saturday leaves at the same time that the northbound service from the Cumbrian coast arrives (18:07). Small adjustments such as this could provide considerable improvements for travelers.
All local services from stations such as Leeds should run to at least 23:30 – 24:00. As I have mentioned previously, the last train from Leeds on the Hallam line leaves at 22:37 and this is frequently as crowded as my morning commute. Having such an early last train also means that many residents of West Yorkshire cannot take full advantage of the cultural life of West Yorkshire as many plays and gigs in Leeds end at 23:00 or later. This will inevitably depress Leeds’ aspirations to become a world class city in terms of culture, which is a shame, particularly since Leeds has just invested in its music arena.

NTSR3
I believe that the Government should understand that leisure travel is an important source of revenue for the railway and that this by its nature tends to be at its heaviest at weekends. To this end, I believe that Sunday services on most routes should be improved to provide a weekend service more suited to leisure activity.

NTSR4
I do not believe that there are any routes where a weekend service offers poor value for money. Railway routes require a considerable amount of maintenance and in order to obtain the best value for money for the local community and taxpayers more widely, they should provide a benefit to the local economy throughout the week and not just for weekday commuters. Moving to a week day only service, greatly underestimates the use of the railway for leisure, shopping and other activities that benefit the economy. The Government should heed the experience of Network SouthEast during the 1980’s, which reduced subsidy by progressively moving away from a business model that was overly reliant on week day commuting. By reducing weekend services, the Government would effectively be moving back to a model that was overly reliant on week day commuting and has been proven to lead to high subsidies.

 

[David Barrett]

Passenger railways are best at transporting large numbers of people long distances or through congested urban areas. Small rural communities that generate footfall of less than a few dozen per day can be more efficiently served by road transport (bus, taxi, private car and bicycle).

If the service between principal stations can be improved, in speed and/or frequency, by reducing intermediate stops, that will stimulate modal shift to the railway which may far outweigh the loss of passengers from the lightly-used stations (some of whom will drive to the nearest main station instead).

Most of our stations were constructed in the 19th century when travel patterns were considerably different to today's. Just because, 150 years ago, a particular village successfully lobbied (or blackmailed!) a railway promoter to get its own station, it does not follow that that station must necessarily have an hourly service in perpetuity, regardless of the subsidy required.

In my view, attempting to operate the Northern network as a giant heritage railway will eventually lead to more drastic cuts, when the subsidies become politically unacceptable. The railway industry, like all others, must adapt to survive.

However, should subsidy become politically unacceptable then the bus industry would be affected just as much as the railways and may the Lord help those who do not have access to a car or are able to afford the fare for a more efficient taxi.

 

[Class 170101]

Passenger railways are best at transporting large numbers of people long distances or through congested urban areas. Small rural communities that generate footfall of less than a few dozen per day can be more efficiently served by road transport (bus, taxi, private car and bicycle).

I feel I should addd that certain lines were retained even by Beeching due to the poor road network at that time. I imagine the same still applies in places today.

 

[edwin_m]

I feel I should addd that certain lines were retained even by Beeching due to the poor road network at that time. I imagine the same still applies in places today.

I guess this is the reason why Bere Alston and Gunnislake kept their trains while the much larger settlement at Tavistock didn't.

 

[tbtc]

Passenger railways are best at transporting large numbers of people long distances or through congested urban areas. Small rural communities that generate footfall of less than a few dozen per day can be more efficiently served by road transport (bus, taxi, private car and bicycle).

If the service between principal stations can be improved, in speed and/or frequency, by reducing intermediate stops, that will stimulate modal shift to the railway which may far outweigh the loss of passengers from the lightly-used stations (some of whom will drive to the nearest main station instead).

Most of our stations were constructed in the 19th century when travel patterns were considerably different to today's. Just because, 150 years ago, a particular village successfully lobbied (or blackmailed!) a railway promoter to get its own station, it does not follow that that station must necessarily have an hourly service in perpetuity, regardless of the subsidy required.

In my view, attempting to operate the Northern network as a giant heritage railway will eventually lead to more drastic cuts, when the subsidies become politically unacceptable. The railway industry, like all others, must adapt to survive.

Agreed.

Whilst I like the railways, I'm not naive enough to think that they are the solution to every problem - and a station that sees only handful of passengers a day isn't really what mass transportation does best.

You know that on a thread like this someone is going to say "...but if you massively improved the service to (insert station name here) then passenger numbers would go up". Whilst this is obviously true, you could say the same of every station - and the rewards for throwing resources at some rural stations are going to be pretty slim compared to improvements at already-busy stations.

Even in these heady days of record breaking passenger numbers (when compared to the modern size of network), there are dozens of stations that attract "one man and his dog" - whilst passenger demand is cyclical, we seem to be in a "boom" period at the moment and these stations still don't attract many people.

Northern seem to have more than their fare share of such stations and services - I'd not lose any sleep over something like Sheffield - Pontefract - York getting chopped (there are three trains an hour from Sheffield to Wakefield Kirkgate, so regular enough connections with Wakefield - Pontefract services, there are two fast trains an hour from Sheffield to York already - the intermediate stations unserved by other routes aren't that busy.

The danger is that if we keep throwing money at these kind of quiet routes/stations we'll give the whole of the "Provincial"* network a bad reputation - it'll be easy for people to point to fourteen passengers a year at Tees-Side Airport to damn all local services (the Great British Public can be easily fooled into thinking that one or two extreme examples are "the norm).


Let the railway focus on what it's best at (moving large numbers of people, and large volumes of freight) rather than trying to be All Things To All People.
(* - or "Regional Railways", depending on your age)

 

[strowger]

The danger is that if we keep throwing money at these kind of quiet routes/stations we'll give the whole of the "Provincial"* network a bad reputation - it'll be easy for people to point to fourteen passengers a year at Tees-Side Airport to damn all local services (the Great British Public can be easily fooled into thinking that one or two extreme examples are "the norm).

This.

We know the total cost to the treasury of Northern Rail's routes is far too high - at least 40p per passenger-mile in subsidy. Rail in the North of England is a very expensive luxury for the country.

We lack data about where this is spent in terms of which lines are nearest to economic viability.

 

[yorksrob]

The danger is that if we keep throwing money at these kind of quiet routes/stations we'll give the whole of the "Provincial"* network a bad reputation - it'll be easy for people to point to fourteen passengers a year at Tees-Side Airport to damn all local services (the Great British Public can be easily fooled into thinking that one or two extreme examples are "the norm).


Let the railway focus on what it's best at (moving large numbers of people, and large volumes of freight) rather than trying to be All Things To All People.
(* - or "Regional Railways", depending on your age)

Looking at the passenger usage figures for 2012/13, out of 2536 stations, 2480 are registered as having over 1000 entries and exits a year, i.e. over 3 passengers a day. 2282 stations have over 10,000 entries and exits a year. This is still the vast majority of railway stations, and that's 27 journeys a day. For a smallish community, that could be significant. That could be employment for thirteen of the village if these represent return journeys.

So, thirteen people a day isn't an optimal size of station. What are you going to do. Run a bus instead ? Is it worth the cost of running a bus when you already have a local train running past that station ? Stopping a local train that is already there might well be the most efficient way of serving that community.

This illustrates a number of things. The number of stations that do only serve one man and his dog are tiny and insignificant. The savings that could be achieved through not stopping at these places are entirely marginal, and to put this forward as some great saving is a smokescreen. As I have asked before, where do they really intend to make these savings ? This is statistics as smoke and mirrors.

Let's take a look at where the lowest used of these stations are ?

Falls Of Cruachan, Scotland
Havenhouse, East Midlands
Denton, North West
Kirton Lindsey, Yorkshire And The Humber
Acklington, North East
Rawcliffe, Yorkshire And The Humber
Achanalt, Scotland
Sampford Courtenay, South West
Sugar Loaf, Wales - Cymru
Pilning, South West
Reddish South, North West
Golf Street, Scotland
Breich, Scotland
Elton & Orston, East Midlands
Buckenham, East
Kildonan, Scotland
Barry Links, Scotland
Shippea Hill, East
Coombe, South West
Tees-Side Airport, North East

You'll note that out of the bottom twenty, only six are in the Northern area. So why are these Northern stations being targeted in particular ? Because small stations have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of how much subsidy a railway requires. Whether Tees Side Airport survives isn't really the issue. I believe we are being softened up for much more damaging cuts (and those who learn nothing from history are falling for it again).

 

[Greybeard33]

What worries me is that stopping fewer trains at these smaller stations is offered as a necessary cost cutting measure. However, not stopping trains at smaller stations isn't going to save any money as:

a) they aren't staffed in the first place and
b) they tend to be intermediate stations, so the train still has to run, to serve the larger stations along the line

So how exactly are they going to make these savings ? What else is on their list.

Subsidy can be reduced by growing farebox revenue as well as by cutting costs. We are in a time of growth in rail travel, very different from the 1960s. Lack of capacity is becoming an issue on many lines. Cutting intermediate stops can enable more frequent, quicker services using longer trains to carry more people buying more tickets. Also the guard has more time between stops to inspect and sell tickets, so reducing ticketless travel.

However, should subsidy become politically unacceptable then the bus industry would be affected just as much as the railways and may the Lord help those who do not have access to a car or are able to afford the fare for a more efficient taxi.

Many villages are thriving even though they have neither a railway station nor much of a bus service. Times change, people adapt. Harsh, but so are cuts in other publicly-funded services that hit the vulnerable and needy in society.

"Ring and ride" services and community transport schemes can provide an alternative to subsidised public transport for those who do not have access to a private car and cannot afford taxis. It can cost less to focus help on those who really need it, rather than also subsidising the affluent commuter who drives from his country mansion to the local village station in his 4x4.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This.

We know the total cost to the treasury of Northern Rail's routes is far too high - at least 40p per passenger-mile in subsidy. Rail in the North of England is a very expensive luxury for the country. We lack data about where this is spent in terms of which lines are nearest to economic viability.

Once granted, will the newly granted "Northern" franchise have an insistence on the reduction of that subsidy level built into its raison d'etre. ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

"Ring and ride" services and community transport schemes can provide an alternative to subsidised public transport for those who do not have access to a private car and cannot afford taxis. It can cost less to focus help on those who really need it, rather than also subsidising the affluent commuter who drives from his country mansion to the local village station in his 4x4.

Indeed so. There has been a conversion of normal services into this mode of travel over the last five years in certain areas.

I wish, however, living as I do in an "H" banded residence (6 beds, 4 recep, 1pdk and an amount of acreage), affluent indeed, with not 1 but 2 Range Rovers, that the barb in the last part of your posting had not found its mark upon me so well....

 

[David Barrett]

Subsidy can be reduced by growing farebox revenue as well as by cutting costs. We are in a time of growth in rail travel, very different from the 1960s. Lack of capacity is becoming an issue on many lines. Cutting intermediate stops can enable more frequent, quicker services using longer trains to carry more people buying more tickets. Also the guard has more time between stops to inspect and sell tickets, so reducing ticketless travel.
Many villages are thriving even though they have neither a railway station nor much of a bus service. Times change, people adapt. Harsh, but so are cuts in other publicly-funded services that hit the vulnerable and needy in society.

"Ring and ride" services and community transport schemes can provide an alternative to subsidised public transport for those who do not have access to a private car and cannot afford taxis. It can cost less to focus help on those who really need it, rather than also subsidising the affluent commuter who drives from his country mansion to the local village station in his 4x4.

Problem is that a high proportion of rail users, although not as extreme as the (c)rude stereotype used in your case against low user stations, are car owners but indeed make massive contributions to the farebox. The travel needs of many of these passengers are vastly different from those of the "Dial a ride" user: Sheffield one day, Oxford the Next, Manchester, Leeds and so on, all often from a fairly average community not noted for its massive wealth. Most of these people are up and out or returning home long before the community bus driver as reset his/her alarm and don't return home until after the last shoppers/school bus is parked up for the night. Exclude this market and the revenue loss would most likely be high in relation to the number of users and just contribute to higher road use.

Meanwhile a piece in the local rag goes something like. "Councillor so and so says community bus service reductions are inevitable if passenger numbers don't improve".

 

[IanXC]

I think the York-Sheffield example is illustrative. The only station not served by other routes is Pontefract Baghill, and Pontefract has other stations with much more frequent services.

Another example would be Knottingly-Goole which has 10/11 usage figures of:
Whitley Bridge 904
Hensall 254
Snaith 2994
Rawcliffe 248

I think there is a case to think about whether it is good use of rolling stock operating these kinds of services. Which also involve the maintenance of sufficient route knowledge, with sufficient numbers of crew to operate the service. Personally I'm not sure that closure is the correct option in all but a very small number of cases, but there is certainly a case in my view to think about the best way of serving these kinds of locations.

In terms of intermediate calls on otherwise existing services its a case of balancing the overall journey time (and how that impacts demand from the larger calls plus, at the margins unit diagrams) with the impact on small communities. My worry is that these decisions need to be made on an individual basis, I get the impression that there is a desire for an single policy on the matter.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Another example would be Knottingly-Goole which has 10/11 usage figures of:
Whitley Bridge 904
Hensall 254
Snaith 2994
Rawcliffe 248

Looking solely at passenger movements isn't sufficient. These people are using three services per weekday (one, one way, and two the other - of which one is effectively an empty stock movement anyway, given it's timing).

What needs to be looked at is the latent demand for a service at these places. There may be none, for all I know. But before a fair judgement can take place, there needs to be a realistically based study of what usage an hourly, or two hourly (or whatever) service here might create.

 

[tbtc]

I think the York-Sheffield example is illustrative. The only station not served by other routes is Pontefract Baghill, and Pontefract has other stations with much more frequent services.

Another example would be Knottingly-Goole which has 10/11 usage figures of:
Whitley Bridge 904
Hensall 254
Snaith 2994
Rawcliffe 248

I think there is a case to think about whether it is good use of rolling stock operating these kinds of services. Which also involve the maintenance of sufficient route knowledge, with sufficient numbers of crew to operate the service. Personally I'm not sure that closure is the correct option in all but a very small number of cases, but there is certainly a case in my view to think about the best way of serving these kinds of locations.

In terms of intermediate calls on otherwise existing services its a case of balancing the overall journey time (and how that impacts demand from the larger calls plus, at the margins unit diagrams) with the impact on small communities. My worry is that these decisions need to be made on an individual basis, I get the impression that there is a desire for an single policy on the matter.

Looking solely at passenger movements isn't sufficient. These people are using three services per weekday (one, one way, and two the other - of which one is effectively an empty stock movement anyway, given it's timing).

What needs to be looked at is the latent demand for a service at these places. There may be none, for all I know. But before a fair judgement can take place, there needs to be a realistically based study of what usage an hourly, or two hourly (or whatever) service here might create.

I think that IanXC's figures are important.

If one person uses a station to and from work five days a week then they are going to be making approximately 500 "journeys" at that station a year (i.e. going to work around 250 times, returning 250 times)...

...so any station used under 500 times a year (Hensall 254, Rawcliffe 248) doesn't even have one person relying on it to work each day. Is that really the best use of mass transportation?

I'm sure that if you increased the supply (number of trains stopping each day) then the demand (number of passengers using the station) would go up - i.e. latent demand - but the same is true of every line in the UK.

The spare DMU(s) you'd need for an hourly service from Knottingly-Goole (just over half an hour journey, so you may need more than one DMU to sustain it) has to be seen in the context of using the same DMU(s) as extra capacity on already-busy services (e.g. if we are talking about Yorkshire then there are other routes where people currently stand that could do with that capacity) or running other services (e.g. if I had a spare DMU or two in Yorkshire then I could bring up the York - Hull service to clockface hourly).

Most of these poorly used stations have been around for a long time, yet in the middle of a huge boom in passenger numbers they are still only used by a trickle of passengers.

Looking at the passenger usage figures for 2012/13, out of 2536 stations, 2480 are registered as having over 1000 entries and exits a year, i.e. over 3 passengers a day. 2282 stations have over 10,000 entries and exits a year. This is still the vast majority of railway stations, and that's 27 journeys a day. For a smallish community, that could be significant. That could be employment for thirteen of the village if these represent return journeys

The number of stations that do only serve one man and his dog are tiny and insignificant

There are over fifty stations that have under a thousand "journeys" a year - i.e. the equivalent of two passengers who use the station to work five days a week - which seems to be a reasonable benchmark (since "departing passengers per day" is a much simpler figure to use - avoids double counting etc).

I think that you could cut most of these poorly used stations without it significantly impacting upon any stations that have over 10,000 journeys a year.

So, thirteen people a day isn't an optimal size of station. What are you going to do. Run a bus instead ? Is it worth the cost of running a bus when you already have a local train running past that station ? Stopping a local train that is already there might well be the most efficient way of serving that community

I don't think that anyone is talking about cutting any stations that see 10,000 journeys a year - there are many much weaker stations than those.

And, you're assuming that the site for the station is the heart of the "community" - many towns/ villages are centred nowhere near the station (which is why the station struggles for passengers).

a smokescreen

This is statistics as smoke and mirrors

I believe we are being softened up for much more damaging cuts (and those who learn nothing from history are falling for it again)

I think that you are being a tad alarmist. It should be possible to talk about closing Tees-Valley Airport station without it meaning closing significantly bigger stations.

If the railway is sacred, and we cannot close any station without people invoking the spectre of much wider closures then we might as well forget about adjusting to modern demands and keep running a railway based upon the 1960s (or the 1860s).

Let's take a look at where the lowest used of these stations are ?

Falls Of Cruachan, Scotland
Havenhouse, East Midlands
Denton, North West
Kirton Lindsey, Yorkshire And The Humber
Acklington, North East
Rawcliffe, Yorkshire And The Humber
Achanalt, Scotland
Sampford Courtenay, South West
Sugar Loaf, Wales - Cymru
Pilning, South West
Reddish South, North West
Golf Street, Scotland
Breich, Scotland
Elton & Orston, East Midlands
Buckenham, East
Kildonan, Scotland
Barry Links, Scotland
Shippea Hill, East
Coombe, South West
Tees-Side Airport, North East

You'll note that out of the bottom twenty, only six are in the Northern area. So why are these Northern stations being targeted in particular ?

Partly because a large number of poorly used Northern stations are on lines where we need to run a special service just to keep the station "alive", like the Stockport - Stalybridge service or the extension beyond Knottingley to Goole. A lot more effort to keep a failing station on "life support" when you factor in the expense of a dedicated train service too (rather than just the dwell time on an existing service).

Partly because most of the poorly used Northern stations are in areas with alternative public transport (in fact, often quite close to other train stations). If you close Sugar Loaf then you may leave a big gap on the map without public transport - if you close Reddish South and Denton then there are plenty of existing alternatives.

 

[ainsworth74]

And, you're assuming that the site for the station is the heart of the "community" - many towns/ villages are centred nowhere near the station (which is why the station struggles for passengers).

This is something that is very true of a number of East Yorkshire stations. You look at a map and the station is often a mile or more away from the village it's named after! And seeing as everyone will have a car in that village it's not surprising that they'd rather drive, either to a bigger railhead like Brough, or all the way to wherever they're going.

I think that you are being a tad alarmist. It should be possible to talk about closing Tees-Valley Airport station without it meaning closing significantly bigger stations.

Speaking as a regular user of the line I think it's past time for Teesside Airport station to close it's a waste of resources, time, money and effort to keep it open. That being said I wouldn't demolish it as there are murmurings of building a large housing estate just next to the station. If that were to happen it might be worthwhile considering a re-opening and it would be far easier to do that if the station is still there.