My idea for Temporary New Stations to Assess Demand

[Mr Mean]

For areas where a new station is considered feasible on terms of availability of stock and timetable flexibility, instead of spending years and £m's consulting and constructing why don't network rail, or whoever, construct a temporary facility to see what happens in terms of demand? The temporary station at Leeds during the station works in the early 2000s along with the the one where a bridge was washed away (can't remember name) were built in days using heavy duty scaffold and portakabins. Why can't this be done across the network? Why must £10m be found and years of planning?

Im not saying don't ever build a £10m, or whatever it costs, station but why must growth and new opportunities be held back from so long?

 

[D365]

Surely you still have to do a feasibility study to see which services can accommodate another stop and get all the relevant planning permission.

 

[swt_passenger]

Surely you still have to do a feasibility study to see which services can accommodate another stop

I think the OP covered that with: "considered feasible in terms of availability of stock and timetable flexibility" in the first line?

...and get all the relevant planning permission.

That's the obvious difficulty. Planning permission will still have to be achieved for a temporary trial. And you couldn't just lash something up in the middle of a field, you'd need proper access if it wasn't an emergency like Workington...

 

[DelW]

I can see the attraction of spending some of the money that would have gone on studies and reports, on actually building a try-it-out station, but one problem is that even for a temporary facility you would need not only to get through the planning system, but the environmental impact aspects. Unless it's on a quiet line you may also need to amend signalling, retrain a large number of drivers, etc. all adding to costs.

Then if the trial didn't produce enough revenue, there will be howls of anguish from the users when it's withdrawn again.

 

[telstarbox]

You'd still need to have an access, surfaced car park and drop off area, engineering possessions for construction, probably a footbridge, etc. Factor in labour costs and you wouldn't be far off the cost of a full station anyway, and then if you do 'upgrade' to a full one there's more costs and more possessions.

TfGM and WY Metro built permanent stations at low cost in the 1970s and 1980s such as Hag Fold and East Garforth.

 

[infobleep]

You'd still need to have an access, surfaced car park and drop off area, engineering possessions for construction, probably a footbridge, etc. Factor in labour costs and you wouldn't be far off the cost of a full station anyway, and then if you do 'upgrade' to a full one there's more costs and more possessions.

TfGM and WY Metro built permanent stations at low cost in the 1970s and 1980s such as Hag Fold and East Garforth.

Can permanent stations be built at low cost today?

 

[GW43125]

For areas where a new station is considered feasible on terms of availability of stock and timetable flexibility, instead of spending years and £m's consulting and constructing why don't network rail, or whoever, construct a temporary facility to see what happens in terms of demand? The temporary station at Leeds during the station works in the early 2000s along with the the one where a bridge was washed away (can't remember name) were built in days using heavy duty scaffold and portakabins. Why can't this be done across the network? Why must £10m be found and years of planning?
?

I believe that was Workington North.

 

[3141]

Can permanent stations be built at low cost today?

Nothing can be built at low cost today.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Nothing can be built at low cost today.

And if it's a success, you have to close it to build a proper one ...

 

[edwin_m]

Some demand for a new station will arise immediately because there are people who live near it and the train service goes where they want to go and is more convenient than how they made the journey previously. However there are other flows of passengers that only build up over a period of several years. Taking the example of a new station serving a housing area with a good train service to an employment area, these would include:
- People employed in the employment area moving to be near the station to give them an easy commute
- People already living near the station getting jobs in the employment area
- People moving into new houses that are built near the station because the new train service makes it an attractive place to live

If a "pop-up" station opened for a few months, these flows wouldn't have time to build up and the premature conclusion might be drawn that there aren't enough passengers to justify a permanent station. Taking this further, even for a longer trial period, people wouldn't make big decisions on where to live and work knowing that the station could disappear in the future, so these groups of passengers would probably never appear.

 

[tbtc]

if the trial didn't produce enough revenue, there will be howls of anguish from the users when it's withdrawn again

^^ This ^^

Nobody wants the hassle of the political scrap required to close lightly used lines/ stations - even if only one man and a dog use them, you know that there'll be a petition of ten thousand people demanding that it stays open, there'll be some local councillors/ MP trying to use it as a political football...

...imagine the argument if you tried to close a useless station like Breich today...

...so whilst I like the idea of "trial" stations in theory (and there are some places where a modular station could work), I can't imagine circumstances where people would shrug their shoulders and a accept that it was a failure because it didn't reach the expected number of passengers (and there'd be excuses made about the fact that more people would have used it if only there had been cheaper tickets and regular services until midnight and anyway the lack of passenger numbers is because of Guards not checking tickets rather than because few people use it).

Also, how long would "temporary" be? Stations may need a couple of years to bed in, before you can assess whether figures are stable (the first month may see lots of gricers but it may take a lot longer for commuters to change habits and give up their cars)

Nice idea, but I don't see it working. What is more pressing is "how can you build stations at a reasonable price" (I know that some enthusiasts like a Doric arch or a grand facade, but we are in danger of pricing places out of a station).

And if it's a success, you have to close it to build a proper one ...

Good point!

 

[Elecman]

You'd still need to have an access, surfaced car park and drop off area, engineering possessions for construction, probably a footbridge, etc. Factor in labour costs and you wouldn't be far off the cost of a full station anyway, and then if you do 'upgrade' to a full one there's more costs and more possessions.

TfGM and WY Metro built permanent stations at low cost in the 1970s and 1980s such as Hag Fold and East Garforth.

Lostock Junction was built under rules that allowed its closure and removal if it wasn't successful

 

[najaB]

Isn't this the whole point of the experimental station process?

 

[Dr_Paul]

The temporary station at Leeds during the station works in the early 2000s along with the the one where a bridge was washed away (can't remember name) were built in days using heavy duty scaffold and portakabins.

That sounds like Berrylands. It seems to have managed pretty well in the 80 or so years it's been open.

 

[randyrippley]

There are places where it could be done e.g. several locations along the Lancaster-Morecambe-Heysham route IF you wanted to experiment with rail replacing buses. However there would have to be corresponding increases in vehicle provision and also in bringing the signalling to a suitable standard. At present during the day there are something like 14 buses an hour between Morecambe and Lancaster (much down on the peak of just a few years ago) and the train would have to replace a significant number of those.
All in all, the expenditure would be too high - even if the stations were cheap prefabs