Passenger service lines that deserve to close

[Philip C]

For example, why did we have to wait for Beeching to get rid of Chester Northgate station and allow better interchange with just a single Chester station.

I suppose the simple answer is (1) money - it would have been neither cheap nor easy to divert services from the Hawarden direction into Chester General (as far as I'm aware there was no track connection in the Chester area) and (2) Northgate was much more convenient for the centre of Chester - General has always been an awkward distance from the walled inner city.

Your point about interchange being improved is true but Beeching didn't simply get rid of Northgate and divert the Knutsford/Northwich line to General to smiles all round. The critical enabler was closure of services to the west out of Northgate which, with diversion of the Manchester Central service meant Northgate could be discarded.

Prior to Beeching's recommendation that Wrexham-New Brighton services (plus those running from that line via Sealand, Saughall & Blacon to Northgate) be withdrawn it would have been quite impracticable for all Chester services to be concentrated on General. That, in short, is why we had to wait for Beeching before Northgate could be closed.

 

[PHILIPE]

I suppose the simple answer is (1) money - it would have been neither cheap nor easy to divert services from the Hawarden direction into Chester General (as far as I'm aware there was no track connection in the Chester area) and (2) Northgate was much more convenient for the centre of Chester - General has always been an awkward distance from the walled inner city.

Your point about interchange being improved is true but Beeching didn't simply get rid of Northgate and divert the Knutsford/Northwich line to General to smiles all round. The critical enabler was closure of services to the west out of Northgate which, with diversion of the Manchester Central service meant Northgate could be discarded.

Prior to Beeching's recommendation that Wrexham-New Brighton services (plus those running from that line via Sealand, Saughall & Blacon to Northgate) be withdrawn it would have been quite impracticable for all Chester services to be concentrated on General. That, in short, is why we had to wait for Beeching before Northgate could be closed.

Involved the building of a new connection at Mickle Trafford.

 

[Bill EWS]

I'm in agreement with Markredon. I find it quite disgusting hearing others suggesting 'other' people/areas should lose their railway. The railway, ever since it grew to such proportions has been a bottomless pit in regards costs and putting money into them, whether a major mainline or a branch line. The scale of the 'beast' dictates that. Having worked on the railway for 4 years I was always aware at the impossible costs that were being spent in the National system. The upkeep is horrendous and the same was whether it was Privatised or Nationaly owned. We had Nationalisation with it's massive staff costs and now privatisation where it's run on a shoestring with the barest of staff and equipment etc. There is no easy answer, you either want a railway or you don't, but as the country would come to a stand without it's railways you have to accept the costs of running them safely. We quickly discovered the the foolishness of chopping all the feeder lines off, over the 60's and allowing the roads to becoming over-crowded. The cost of trying to turn the cuts around are now overwhelmingly expensive.

 

[Philip C]

Involved the building of a new connection at Mickle Trafford.

Yes that is true, but could not have led to closure of the station without withdrawal of the New Brighton and Wrexham services westbound out of Northgate. These went in September 1968 followed by the diversion of the Manchester services and station closure on October 6th 1969.

 

[Mordac]

It can do - there is an experimental station process.

Makes you wonder why the couldn't have tried this at Lamington (the A702 is right next to the line just south of the viaduct).

 

[najaB]

Makes you wonder why the couldn't have tried this at Lamington (the A702 is right next to the line just south of the viaduct).

It was discussed on the thread at the time. The road access wasn't great, there wasn't a convenient place to turn the trains and the end-to-end journey times wouldn't have been much better than what was actually being achieved.

 

[jamesr]

What about Heysham Dock, only 1 Train a day and the track feels ready to fall apart!

Heysham crops up in these threads quite often, but that one train a day serves a purpose in meeting the ferry. It's a pretty useful connection to or from the Isle of Man, having used it quite regularly for over a decade, there's always a fair handful of people on it. The actual numbers are probably hidden in the usage statistics as they're probably mostly Sail & Rail tickets.

The track does feel pretty much like a freight siding though (which i guess is what it is!)

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Heysham crops up in these threads quite often, but that one train a day serves a purpose in meeting the ferry. It's a pretty useful connection to or from the Isle of Man, having used it quite regularly for over a decade, there's always a fair handful of people on it. The actual numbers are probably hidden in the usage statistics as they're probably mostly Sail & Rail tickets.

The track does feel pretty much like a freight siding though (which i guess is what it is!)

There is more then one a day - there are additional trains on weekends

 

[AndyNLondon]

One that was mentioned earlier in the thread is Newhaven Marine. This station needs to either be closed properly, or brought back into use - the current status quo of it having no services but not having been "officially closed" makes a mockery of the idea that there is a proper closure process to be followed. (Why bother going through the hassle of the formal closure process if you can just neglect a station until it becomes unsafe and then suspend the service indefinitely?)

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

One that was mentioned earlier in the thread is Newhaven Marine. This station needs to either be closed properly, or brought back into use - the current status quo of it having no services but not having been "officially closed" makes a mockery of the idea that there is a proper closure process to be followed. (Why bother going through the hassle of the formal closure process if you can just neglect a station until it becomes unsafe and then suspend the service indefinitely?)

They closed it until the roof was dealt with - now that it has been removed, they should restart passenger services. I often ask Southern to do that

Until a decision is made, Long Live Newhaven Marine

 

[Y961 XBU]

Heysham crops up in these threads quite often, but that one train a day serves a purpose in meeting the ferry. It's a pretty useful connection to or from the Isle of Man, having used it quite regularly for over a decade, there's always a fair handful of people on it. The actual numbers are probably hidden in the usage statistics as they're probably mostly Sail & Rail tickets.

The track does feel pretty much like a freight siding though (which i guess is what it is!)

That explains the poor ride quality down there!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

They closed it until the roof was dealt with - now that it has been removed, they should restart passenger services. I often ask Southern to do that

Until a decision is made, Long Live Newhaven Marine

But the reason for the station to exist is no longer there. If there'd been a branch to that abandoned village on Salisbury Plain before the army took it over, you wouldn't expect it to still have a service once the population was relocated. The only people who'd want to catch a train there would be track and shack bashers, and that's not a good reason to run a service. Even Harbour has lost its raison d'etre in favour of Newhaven Town.

 

[backontrack]

But the reason for the station to exist is no longer there. If there'd been a branch to that abandoned village on Salisbury Plain before the army took it over, you wouldn't expect it to still have a service once the population was relocated. The only people who'd want to catch a train there would be track and shack bashers, and that's not a good reason to run a service. Even Harbour has lost its raison d'etre in favour of Newhaven Town.

Not that HMS Ark Royal will care.

I mean, seriously, people have said this to him often enough.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

But the reason for the station to exist is no longer there. If there'd been a branch to that abandoned village on Salisbury Plain before the army took it over, you wouldn't expect it to still have a service once the population was relocated.

Yes, yes I would

 

[muddythefish]

Why are we having this inane conversation? The entire British railway system does not run at a profit, it is massively subsidised by central government. There is an implicit and never properly discussed social contract whereby it is accepted that the capital costs of improving the railway fall almost entirely to central government. The bits of the system that cover their direct costs are those primarily in the south-east where there are no reasonable alternatives and where it is possible to charge the more or less commercial fare for the provision of a service. The suburban services in most of the rest of the country do not cover their direct costs and certainly do not cover their overall costs. Perhaps the ECML and the WCML and the Great Western line turn a notional "profit". But they massively depend on the traffic which is fed to them from other lines.

I and many people on this forum hugely benefit from the fact that most of the system has been left open. First Beeching and then Serpell dreamt of cutting the system back to a profitable core. There isn't one. The economics of transport are close to those of a natural monopoly in which arguments from welfare economics (think Pareto) suggest that you subsidise the system for the benefit of us all.

Look at the rate of return generated globally by airlines – in a good year, half a percent or 1%; in a bad year a loss. Then look at the implicit state subsidy: massive cross-subsidy from defence-oriented spending. The aviation system viewed as a system certainly does not generate a proper return on capital employed. Nor do the railways in Britain; I suggest that we all get over it and be glad that government (a.k.a. us!) still pays a large part of the billas an entirely justifiable cross-subsidy.

We are now discovering 60 years after Beeching the enormous and usually insurmountable costs of reopening a closed line. Once closed, a line will almost never be reopened – even when there is a very strong case for reopening. Look at how long it has taken to get even the glimmer of a hope that Oxford to Cambridge will be fully reopened. Had that line remained open, I doubt anybody today would be calling for its closure.

There may be some inanities, some basket cases, which suggest the possibility of closure – perhaps Newhaven Marine is one of them. But for the rest, let us seek ways to minimise the costs and increase the usage and get the best possible social return on a large social investment. I am utterly delighted that the lines to (for example) the far north have survived as long as they have. Let us have no talk of closure; only talk about how to reduce the costs and how to increase the revenues and how to increase the overall social benefit. And we need to be identifying routes that are crying out for further investment or alternatives or both: think HS2, TransNorth, BML2.

End of sermon!

Excellent post.

This thread is ridiculous - in 2016 no railway line should be slated for closure and the exact opposite should be the case.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

This thread is ridiculous - in 2016 no railway line should be slated for closure and the exact opposite should be the case.

This is why I argue NVM stays "open"

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Excellent post.

This thread is ridiculous - in 2016 no railway line should be slated for closure and the exact opposite should be the case.

For the most part, I'd agree... But there are exceptions, Newhaven Marine being the obvious one. I'd hold back from making the closure process easier though, as that may well have unintended consequences.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

But there are exceptions, Newhaven Marine being the obvious one.

Really...?

 

[ainsworth74]

This is why I argue NVM stays "open"

Which barely fits the criteria of 'line' considering we're talking about a few dozens of meters of track. But even if it did the area it serves is amply covered by the existing stations plus it serves no actual purpose any more.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Which barely fits the criteria of 'line' considering we're talking about a few dozens of meters of track. But even if it did the area it serves is amply covered by the existing stations plus it serves no actual purpose any more.

I know

I still say it should be kept open and returned to full operational status

 

[DT611]

The choice for newhaven marine now should be either provide a service or go through the closure process. I understand originally the roof became an issue meaning trains couldn't serve it, but it shouldn't have got to that stage in my view. The roof should have been sorted straight away, or the closure process gone through if the station really wasn't wanted. But simply suspending the service, then not returning it once the issue that cause the suspension has gone, isn't really the way to do things in my view. It does mean a little less security for the railway (even if the current situation is probably the best and cheepist for the relevant parties) . But regardless, the choice to either provide a service or shut ultimately has to and should be made.

 

[Bald Rick]

I know

I still say it should be kept open and returned to full operational status

Why ?

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Why ?

Two reasons

A) I like it

B) As has been mentioned by others here, it would otherwise set a dangerous legal standpoint

 

[Bald Rick]

Two reasons

A) I like it

B) As has been mentioned by others here, it would otherwise set a dangerous legal standpoint

I like my local pub. It closed as not enough people used it. Unlike Newhaven Marine, the next nearest pub is a mile away. Just because I like it doesn't mean it should stay open.

Not sure what the dangerous legal standpoint is if a proper closure processs is followed. It happened at Folkestone Harbour under similar circumstances.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

I like my local pub. It closed as not enough people used it. Unlike Newhaven Marine, the next nearest pub is a mile away. Just because I like it doesn't mean it should stay open.

Not sure what the dangerous legal standpoint is if a proper closure processs is followed. It happened at Folkestone Harbour under similar circumstances.

Folkestone Harbour was a shambles... Wikipedia notes:

2001 Station closed to regular traffic
2009 Line closed to all traffic
2014 line officially closed

So there was a period where the station was closed to passenger usage but remained open.

My point, and that of others here, is that companies can close stations to services and later on close the station because there is "no demand" from there

 

[backontrack]

Two reasons

A) I like it

B) As has been mentioned by others here, it would otherwise set a dangerous legal standpoint

Without being offensive, your viewpoint does not matter one bit. Nobody cares whether you like it or not. You're on your own.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My point, and that of others here, is that companies can close stations to services and later on close the station because there is "no demand" from there

But there wasn't any demand in the first place - if there was then they would have kept the services running.

 

[A0]

I am still in shock that we have a board on here discussing which lines should be closed. Have we had any new members called Marples and Beeching?
What we should be discussing is how to develop patronage on these more lightly used lines, to promote their growth.

I completely disagree - the point is the railways should be dynamic and change as the population and demands change. You can't *force* people to change their behaviour - they tend to resent that and find workarounds.

There have been closures in recent times which have made perfect sense - two which I can think of were Farringdon - Moorgate which had to happen to allow the extension of Farringdon station for Thameslink enhancements and Stratford - North Woolwich on the NLL, in part to allow redevelopment of the NLL generally, in part because the DLR was in place providing a shadow service and in part because part of the trackbed was needed for Crossrail.

Nobody's advocating wide-spread closures or service withdrawls, but some suggestions - Newhaven Marine for example - seem very sensible to put forward as closures. In that case the next nearest station is less than 1km away and the usage on Marine, even if it were reopened would be minimal. The Weymouth tramway is another example which I can fully understand the rationale for closure.

Another I could see or justify would be if LU decided to turn over the Watford DC lines to being an extension of the Bakerloo line and withdrawing service between Queens Park and Euston. It could lead to the closure of Kilburn High Road and South Hampstead stations but given they've got alternatives less than 200m away - and the removal of the DC services between Queens Park and Euston would potentially allow removal of the third rail into Euston and create more capacity into Euston - this might also make sense.

It's about looking at each proposal in its context, not just saying 'we should never close a station or line'.

 

[backontrack]

Why are we having this inane conversation? The entire British railway system does not run at a profit, it is massively subsidised by central government. There is an implicit and never properly discussed social contract whereby it is accepted that the capital costs of improving the railway fall almost entirely to central government. The bits of the system that cover their direct costs are those primarily in the south-east where there are no reasonable alternatives and where it is possible to charge the more or less commercial fare for the provision of a service. The suburban services in most of the rest of the country do not cover their direct costs and certainly do not cover their overall costs. Perhaps the ECML and the WCML and the Great Western line turn a notional "profit". But they massively depend on the traffic which is fed to them from other lines.

I and many people on this forum hugely benefit from the fact that most of the system has been left open. First Beeching and then Serpell dreamt of cutting the system back to a profitable core. There isn't one. The economics of transport are close to those of a natural monopoly in which arguments from welfare economics (think Pareto) suggest that you subsidise the system for the benefit of us all.

Look at the rate of return generated globally by airlines – in a good year, half a percent or 1%; in a bad year a loss. Then look at the implicit state subsidy: massive cross-subsidy from defence-oriented spending. The aviation system viewed as a system certainly does not generate a proper return on capital employed. Nor do the railways in Britain; I suggest that we all get over it and be glad that government (a.k.a. us!) still pays a large part of the billas an entirely justifiable cross-subsidy.

We are now discovering 60 years after Beeching the enormous and usually insurmountable costs of reopening a closed line. Once closed, a line will almost never be reopened – even when there is a very strong case for reopening. Look at how long it has taken to get even the glimmer of a hope that Oxford to Cambridge will be fully reopened. Had that line remained open, I doubt anybody today would be calling for its closure.

There may be some inanities, some basket cases, which suggest the possibility of closure – perhaps Newhaven Marine is one of them. But for the rest, let us seek ways to minimise the costs and increase the usage and get the best possible social return on a large social investment. I am utterly delighted that the lines to (for example) the far north have survived as long as they have. Let us have no talk of closure; only talk about how to reduce the costs and how to increase the revenues and how to increase the overall social benefit. And we need to be identifying routes that are crying out for further investment or alternatives or both: think HS2, TransNorth, BML2.

End of sermon!

Agreed. It saddens me that people are still talking about closing the Esk Valley Line, the Conwy Valley Line, the HoWL, the Looe Valley Line, the West Highland Line, the Kyle Line and the Settle & Carlisle Line. There is not a single railway line in the UK that merits closure. We need to invest much more in our rail network as a country, and cherish our network.

As for Newhaven Marine, while I don't think we have to close that right now, I don't want to see my taxes funding services to a station just because HMS Ark Royal likes it. Just leave it alone. Let it rust.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Without being offensive, your viewpoint does not matter one bit. Nobody cares whether you like it or not. You're on your own.

Everybody's viewpoint matters

 

[backontrack]

Everybody's viewpoint matters

Yours doesn't really matter in the scheme of things, however. While I agree that everybody's viewpoint does matter - perhaps my post was badly worded - it remains that national change can't happen at the whim of just one person. Nobody is willing to pay taxes to fund a rail service just for you, I'm afraid. If you find that loads of people agree with you on this, you could always start a petition - or, more likely, start an heritage group and build the station into a tourist attraction. Then you might be able to run trains to Newhaven Town.