Closure of Teesside Airport station

[NorthernSpirit]

I guess a non-permanent closure at least gives an opportunity to reopen the station in the future if circumstances change, such as new housing developments.

Some section 106 housing and a rebuilt fully accessible railway station would be more than ideal, plus the employment would be at the airport.

 

[MarkyT]

Rather like Pilning, near Bristol, where the Down platform is closed because it wasn't considered worth replacing the footbridge to gain sufficient clearance for electrification. Patchway, the next station, has gained passenger lifts.

Yes, access is often the straw that breaks the camel's back. Also if a footbridge needs renewing due to condition or electrification clearance, then consideration for disabled access comes into play. A new major ramp structure or lifts could easily blow more money than the station has earned in the entire half-century it has existed for.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Some section 106 housing and a rebuilt fully accessible railway station would be more than ideal, plus the employment would be at the airport.

Indeed, basically do another Buckshaw Village.

 

[bramling]

[Sarcasm] This is quite clearly the thin end of the wedge. Close this station and in a couple of years time they will be closing Manchester Airport station. [/Sarcasm]

The list further up this thread, IBM, British Steel Redcar and Newhaven Marine. All stations people on here were furious about their improper closure and how it has lead to route closures and the like. None of this has happened and if the railway can stop using resources on things that are massively underused and with no clear purpose. (Not village stations, but railway stations currently serving nothing at all) then we can cut the cost and subsidy.

To repair the platform you would need to book a possession, the equipment, the materials, the staff at a cost at which you could probably just taxi everyone there from dinsdale or Darlington for the next 30 years.

Good riddance to old rubbish.

Much as we all like these obscure stations from an enthusiast point of view, I tend to agree that they are a waste of money if genuinely unused, as well as slowing down the journeys of any services which do call there.

That said, I do get the “thin end of wedge” argument, especially as it does seem rather coincidental that all of a sudden we’re finding safety issues mysteriously cropping up leading to closure by stealth.

In an ideal world we need a more streamlined closure procedure.

 

[Crossover]

Even when the airport was busier, most trains called and even when they did try using a minibus no-one used the station. It's a waste of time and money to do anything with it other than mothball it and probably just tear it down if its gotten rotten enough. I appreciate your drive to improve the rail/air link but there is just no sign that anything has fundamentally changed to get people to use public transport to the airport rather than drive.

Just close the station and be done with it rather than faffing around with pie in the sky ideas of trying to get people to use it. Then close the airport itself and save the taxpayers who are now the owners of the ruddy thing the expense when it all eventually all ends in tears once the subsidy or whatever deals have been done to lure in Loganair and before them Eastern to provide the Mayor with the good publicity of having "saved the airport!".

The whole thing is like the last bank in the village scenario. Everyone likes the idea of having a local bank in their village but all those people that kick up a fuss when its proposed for closure when asked when they last used it or when they will next use won't have an answer. Same thing here. Lots of people like the idea of having an airport. None of them use it. They all fly from Newcastle, Leeds or Manchester. Close the airport, close the station, redevelop the land and be done with it. Possibly re-site the station if the redevelopment ends up being in place where serving it by rail is actually practical.

I would tend to agree the station has seen its day - even back a few years (6 or 7 perhaps) when me and another forummer visited the station, the fact that we had alighted there was likely to be talk of the messroom (and that was before bumping into another handful of enthusiasts waiting to board!)

I have just looked at the aerial view of the area and it serves virtually nothing (the neighbouring settlements being served by their own stations) bar the airport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Much as we all like these obscure stations from an enthusiast point of view, I tend to agree that they are a waste of money if genuinely unused, as well as slowing down the journeys of any services which do call there.

That said, I do get the “thin end of wedge” argument, especially as it does seem rather coincidental that all of a sudden we’re finding safety issues mysteriously cropping up leading to closure by stealth.

In an ideal world we need a more streamlined closure procedure.

We need a less onerous one, but one that still prevents stations that do get used being closed because they are inconvenient.

 

[Kite159]

Yes, access is often the straw that breaks the camel's back. Also if a footbridge needs renewing due to condition or electrification clearance, then consideration for disabled access comes into play. A new major ramp structure or lifts could easily blow more money than the station has earned in the entire half-century it has existed for.

I wonder how long Ardwick in Manchester will last before the access footbridge gets deemed as unsafe and in need of expensive repairs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wonder how long Ardwick in Manchester will last before the access footbridge gets deemed as unsafe and in need of expensive repairs.

I have wondered that for years, it looks in a terrible state. Mind you looks aren't everything, the bridge at Kirkdale is well rusted and the booking office sits on that!

Ardwick needs mothballing rather than closing, to be honest. It is presently in a run down area of decayed industry, but give it 20 years and the tower blocks of the city centre will have sprawled out to it, and like Salford Central it'll be fairly well used if still open.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Much as we all like these obscure stations from an enthusiast point of view, I tend to agree that they are a waste of money if genuinely unused, as well as slowing down the journeys of any services which do call there.

That said, I do get the “thin end of wedge” argument, especially as it does seem rather coincidental that all of a sudden we’re finding safety issues mysteriously cropping up leading to closure by stealth.

In an ideal world we need a more streamlined closure procedure.

I would imagine that any future attempt to close a useful station via this method (for the sake of argument let's say an issue is found with the footbridge at Morley) would be met with far greater outcry than the essentially pointless stations at Teesside Airport and Newhaven Marine.

It's good that we have these procedures to prevent "closure by stealth", but when they prevent closures that should actually happen (such as NVM) it becomes more of a curse than a blessing. Pearl-clutching from a minority of enthusiasts doesn't do any good either.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would imagine that any future attempt to close a useful station via this method (for the sake of argument let's say an issue is found with the footbridge at Morley) would be met with far greater outcry than the essentially pointless stations at Teesside Airport and Newhaven Marine.

It's good that we have these procedures to prevent "closure by stealth", but when they prevent closures that should actually happen (such as NVM) it becomes more of a curse than a blessing. Pearl-clutching from a minority of enthusiasts doesn't do any good either.

I don't know, I wouldn't call Polesworth useless but that was de-facto closed (1tpd I think) due to, er, a dodgy footbridge.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I don't know, I wouldn't call Polesworth useless but that was de-facto closed (1tpd I think) due to, er, a dodgy footbridge.

Polesworth is an odd one- it isn't exactly in the middle of nowhere, so if it had a decent service in both directions it could do okay. Unfortunately it's had the odd parliamentary-type service for so long that there's no established user base. Anyone who could use it will have got used to working around it by now.

 

[Dai Corner]

Polesworth is an odd one- it isn't exactly in the middle of nowhere, so if it had a decent service in both directions it could do okay. Unfortunately it's had the odd parliamentary-type service for so long that there's no established user base. Anyone who could use it will have got used to working around it by now.

Wasn't it all-but-closed as part of the WCML modernisation to increase capacity for other services like the 3tph to Manchester? A decision had to be made between the interests of local passengers and long-distance ones.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Wasn't it all-but-closed as part of the WCML modernisation to increase capacity for other services like the 3tph to Manchester? A decision had to be made between the interests of local passengers and long-distance ones.

It may well have been part of it, it isn't my neck of the woods... but it is on a quad-track section so I doubt a Polesworth call on the slows would cause any problems for WCML fasts.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wasn't it all-but-closed as part of the WCML modernisation to increase capacity for other services like the 3tph to Manchester? A decision had to be made between the interests of local passengers and long-distance ones.

I think it was seen as awkward to path serving both Atherstone and Polesworth on the WCML slow line stoppers (doesn't affect the Manchesters as those are fast line) but the bridge was a convenient excuse to pretty much close it. Post HS2 it should be possible to reinstate it properly (the planned 2tph Euston-Crewe semifast could have one serving Polesworth and one Atherstone, thus avoiding the pathing issue) but I bet they won't.

 

[The exile]

It presumably doesn’t help that trains serving it miss all the major West Midlands urban areas (with apologies to Nuneaton) while there is a station within spitting distance with through trains to the biggest of them! Were the TV stoppers linked through to London when it was all but closed?

 

[Trainfan2019]

I wonder how long Ardwick in Manchester will last before the access footbridge gets deemed as unsafe and in need of expensive repairs.

I thought exactly the same thing about Ardwick when reading this thread about Teesside Airport station! Can't ever see Ardwick being refurbished, the area is so run down.

As I'm really interested in these obscure, not closed but not open either stations, I was looking up about the airport station online yesterday. Found the bridge at Teesside Airport station is held up by scaffolding on each platform so it must be in genuinely bad condition.

Isn't it strange though that the bridges on least used stations seem to develop problems structure problems? I'm sure I've read that Stanlow and Thornton bridge is unsafe or is it British Steel Redcar?

 

[The exile]

Isn't it strange though that the bridges on least used stations seem to develop problems structure problems?

Not really - they’ll have been at the back of the queue for years /decades and are going to be almost impossible to find external funding for. There have been plenty of other bridges held up by scaffolding - isn’t part of the problem at Teesside Airport that what’s supporting the scaffolding can no longer be relied upon?

 

[pdeaves]

I'm sure I've read that Stanlow and Thornton bridge is unsafe or is it British Steel Redcar?

It is Stanlow, but the difference there is that it isn't railway property. It analagous to the approach road falling to bits.

 

[AndyW33]

I'm not sure if this is true. ISTR having seen a photo of an old passenger air terminal near the station site in the dim and distant past, but can't find any trace of that online now. Published histories suggest the current terminal site, albeit since further rebuilt, has been in use since opening by Princess Margaretha of Sweden in 1966.

You are indeed correct. What I should have said is that when the terminal was very substantially rebuilt, the passenger entrance and the associated approach roads were relocated to a position significantly further away from the station than they were when it was opened.

 

[kkong]

Have always thought Dyce station is quite poorly located for Aberdeen Airport, but of course, it does have a 6,000+ population settlement nearby.

It was in an excellent position for the original airport terminal, until the current terminal was built at the opposite side of the runway in the mid 1970s.

Of course Dyce station was closed from the mid 1960s to the mid 1980s, so little consideration would have been given to the new terminal being situated nowhere near the station.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

It was in an excellent position for the original airport terminal, until the current terminal was built at the opposite side of the runway in the mid 1970s.

Of course Dyce station was closed from the mid 1960s to the mid 1980s, so little consideration would have been given to the new terminal being situated nowhere near the station.

Thanks for the explanation. Got to be the best part of two-and-a-half miles from the railway station round to the present day airport terminal at Dyce.

 

[Starmill]

The 727 between Aberdeen and Aberdeen Airport is much more frequent than the trains are, with between 3 and 5 services per hour. It also runs earlier in the morning and later at night than the train does. Even if the station were as convenient to the terminal as Southampton Airport is, it is unlikely that many people would be using the train for that.

Of course, if you're coming to the airport from the Inverurie direction or from Stonehaven or Portlethen then your having a direct train to Dyce would likely tip the balance and make a taxi ride from the station to the airport the best option. It's also possible to use the X27 but this is somewhat roundabout.

However one looks at it as noted above it's serving a significant local population and as such is quite different to Teesside Airport.

 

[JRT]

Ferihegy Station (Budapest) is virtually next to Terminal 1 of Budapest Airport. Unfortunately the terminal is now disused and passengers emerge from Terminal 2 (the other end of the airport) that's 5 bus stops away.
Progress eh?

 

[ainsworth74]

Ferihegy Station (Budapest) is virtually next to Terminal 1 of Budapest Airport. Unfortunately the terminal is now disused and passengers emerge from Terminal 2 (the other end of the airport) that's 5 bus stops away.
Progress eh?

That can't be right. We're always being told that failures in integration of transport are a uniquely British disease and Europe is the land of milk and honey!

 

[neilmc]

Difference is that the Ferihegy railway station at Budapest Airport isn't a parliamentary service, it's a main line railway station with dozens of daily trains from various parts of the country.

However, it's not the best choice to/from Budapest centre given the bus connection to/from the terminal at the end as there is also a direct express bus service to the city. I am sad to say that this costs a "special" fare of 900 forints, around £2, whereas you can do it by bus and metro for two standard tickets and save about 50p.

What I'm really cross about is finally losing my access to free over-65 travel not just in Budapest but across Hungary due to the bloody Brexit stupidity, fortunately the Tories have just been virtually wiped out in my local elections in Cumbria.

Anyway the concept of defrauding the customer with exorbitant public transport fares hasn't, I'm pleased to say, really caught on in Hungary and a two-hour journey from the capital into the sticks costs about £8.

 

[AY1975]

In the 1980s I believe there was a Teachers Training Centre/College close to Teeside Airport Station, which generated a fair amount of passengers. Not there now.

Yes, and according to Wikipedia the station had a regular service in the 1980s but has only had a token "parliamentary" service since the early 1990s.

Does anyone know when the station lost its last remaining eastbound train, and which train that was? I've found a couple of stories both dated 29th December 2017 to this effect. This would suggest that it was with the May 2018 or December 2018 timetable change.

There is this one from the Darlington & Stockton Times:

End of the line for one platform at one of UK's least popular railway halts

A PLATFORM and footbridge standing on the original route of the Stockton and Darlington Railway which now serves one of the least used stations in…

www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.co.uk

"One platform to close at one of UK's least used railway halts – Teesside Airport

A PLATFORM and footbridge standing on the original route of the Stockton and Darlington Railway which now serves one of the least used stations in the country will be permanently closed.

Just 30 people got on or off a train at the Teesside Airport railway station between April 2016 and March 2017, making it the second most unpopular halt in Britain.

Now Durham Tees Valley Airport (DTVA) bosses have agreed with Northern Rail to operate the station’s current once-a-week service in only one direction."

And this one from the BBC news site:

'Little-used' Teesside Airport Station loses platform

The single weekly service between Hartlepool and Darlington is being cut to only one direction.

www.bbc.co.uk

"'Little-used' Teesside Airport Station loses platform

A platform and the footbridge at one of the least-used stations in the UK are to be removed.
Teesside Airport Station, a kilometre from Durham Tees Valley Airport, was used by only 98 passengers in the past year, and 32 in the previous one.
It is served by a weekly train in each direction between Hartlepool and Darlington, which Northern Rail has now said will only run one way.
It will stop at the airport-side platform, with the other side removed.
The move has been agreed by the airport, which said in a statement: 'The existing airport rail halt, located a kilometre from the terminal building, is used by few people with its location unsuitable for airport passengers and for those in surrounding housing or businesses.
'The costs of maintaining the current infrastructure are estimated to be as high as £6m over the next five years… expenditure which is not in line with our business goals.'
Northern Rail said: 'Currently the station's usage is the fourth lowest nationally - last year saw only 98 people through the facility.
'The year before the number was 32, officially the nation's lowest, [and] the increase was solely due to a visit made by enthusiasts to the station last autumn.'"

I notice also that even on 24th April, the last Sunday before the current closure took effect, the train that was booked to call at Teesside Airport is shown on Real Time Trains as having passed through non-stop (maybe it was a request stop, but I wasn't aware that this was the case): https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:G35847/2022-04-24/detailed

 

[DarloRich]

Another station closed via the "one off" IBM halt mothballing mechanism? Surely not!

 

[SargeNpton]

Another station closed via the "one off" IBM halt mothballing mechanism? Surely not!

If the owner of the land on which the station sits removes public access to the station then whether or not the train operator wishes to serve it becomes irrelevant.

How that stands in law when it comes to station closures would be something for the courts to decide, should someone wish to make a case of it.

 

[fgwrich]

Another station closed via the "one off" IBM halt mothballing mechanism? Surely not!

Surely It’s more a Pilning for now, at least.

 

[Haywain]

Another station closed via the "one off" IBM halt mothballing mechanism? Surely not!

When station 'usage' (based on ticket sales) is only in single or double figures over a year, I find it difficult to feel there's a problem.